The Court has an unfettered discretion to grant extensions of time based on justice and non-compliance consequences.

(Enclosure 19)

Application for Extension Time

[1] This is the Defendant's application in Enc. 19 under O 3 r 5 of the Rules of 2012 (" ROC ") for an extension of the period of time within which he is permitted to file his Defence in this Suit.

[2] Pursuant to O 3 r 5(1) of the ROC , a Court may by order extend the period within which a person is required or authorized by the ROC or by any judgment, order or direction, to any act in any proceedings. Order 3 rule 5(2) states that the Court may extend any such period in rule 5(1) although the application was not made until after the expiration of the period, which the person is seeking to extend.

[3] In this case, the Defendant filed his Defence on 11 December 2019 i.e. more than 7 weeks after 21 October 2019, which is the date directed by the Senior Assistant Registrar at the first case management ("1st CM"), for the Defendant to file his Defence.

[4] It is not disputed that the 1st CM on 7 October 2019 was attended by the Plaintiffs' counsel but not the Defendant's counsel. But there is a dispute whether the Plaintiffs' counsel had mentioned on the Defendant's counsel's behalf during the 1st CM and whether she had informed the Defendant's counsel of the Court's directions after the 1st CM. The Plaintiffs' deponent had averred in the Plaintiffs' affidavit in in reply, that the Plaintiffs' counsel had mentioned of the Defendant's counsel's behalf at the 1st CM. This is however denied by the Defendant in his affidavit in reply. Also, the Court's records of the 1st CM does not show that the Plaintiffs' counsel had mentioned of the Defendant's counsel's behalf. The Court's records shows that the 1st CM was attended by the Plaintiff's counsel only.

[5] There is also a dispute as to whether the Plaintiff's counsel had informed the Defendant's solicitor that the Senior Assistant Registrar had directed at the 1st CM for the Defendant to file his Defence by 21 October 2019.

[6] The Plaintiffs' deponent averred that a Ms. Sally from the Plaintiffs' office had spoken by telephone to someone from the Defendant's solicitor's office informing them of the Court's directive. However, the Defendant in his affidavit in reply denies the telephone conversation between the Plaintiffs' solicitor and the Defendant's solicitor after the 1st CM as averred by the Plaintiffs' deponent.

[7] On 12 November 2019, the Defendant's solicitor emailed the Plaintiffs' solicitor requesting them to mention on his behalf as the second case management ("2nd CM") and for a 3-week extension from 13 November 2019 to file the Defence on the ground that the Defendant's solicitor was overseas and will only be back on 22 November 2019.

[8] At the 2nd CM on 13 November 2019, the Plaintiffs' counsel mentioned on the Defendant's solicitor's behalf and informed the Court that she objected the Defendant's counsel's request for an extension of 3 weeks to file in the Defence and requested that judgment in default of defence to be entered against the Defendant.

[9] On the same day as the 2nd CM, the Plaintiffs filed an application (Enc. 5) for a judgment in default of defence against the Defendant pursuant to O 19 r 2(1) of the ROC and damages and costs to be assessed pursuant to O 19 r 3(3) of the ROC (note: there is an error in the Plaintiffs' application for assessment of damages as there is no O 19 r 3(3) of the ROC ).

[10] At the hearing of Enc. 5 on 27 July 2020, this Court dismissed the Plaintiffs' application to enter judgment in default of defence against the Defendant and directed that the Defendant file an application for extension of time for his Defence that was fil