In Lim Yew Cheng & Anor v Stephen Le Ee Boon & 2 Ors [2026] SGHC(I) 24, the Singapore International Commercial Court (“SICC“) adopted a new approach which had not previously been applied in Singapore, in ordering that certain amendments to the Statement of Claim take effect on the date of the amendment application. This preserved the Defendants’ right to raise limitation defences, leaving the issue of whether those defences were made out to be determined after trial.
The Claimants sued the Defendants in connection with certain financial transactions, raising claims for breach of fiduciary duty, undue influence, misrepresentation, conspiracy, dishonest assistance and knowing receipt. The Defendants denied the claims and raised limitation defences.
Subsequently, the Claimants sought to amend their Statement of Claim. While the Defendants did not object to most of the proposed amendments, they contended that some of them introduced new causes of action which were time-barred by the date of the amendment application, although they may not have been time-barred as at the date of commencement of the proceedings.
The traditional approach to this scenario was to disallow the amendments and require the claimant to file a fresh action to advance the new claims. However, relying on English and Hong Kong authorities, the Defendants proposed that the amendments take effect on the date of the amendment application, thereby preserving their limitation defences. The Claimants initially resisted this, but changed their position at the hearing and agreed with the Defendants’ proposal.
The SICC ordered the contested amendments to take effect on the date of the amendment application. In doing so, the SICC clarified the application of the “relation back rule”:
- Ordinarily, amendments to pleadings “relate back” to the date of commencement of the proceedings. In some cases, however, this may prejudice a defendant by depriving it of a limitation defence that would otherwise have been available if the new claim had been brought separately.
- In such cases, the “relation back rule” can be displaced pursuant to the SICC’s broad powers under Order 1, rule 11(1) of the SICC Rules 2021, so that the amendment takes effect on a later date, thus preserving the defendant’s limitation defence.
- Displacing the “relation back rule” may avoid unnecessary fresh proceedings and permit limitation issues to be resolved at trial, where the court has the benefit of findings of fact.
The First Defendant was successfully represented in this matter by Andre Yeap, SC, Lee Eng Beng, SC, Stanley Tan, Tan Ee Kuan, Timothy Chong, Oliver Tan and Isabel Chan of Rajah & Tann Singapore.
If you have any queries on the above, please reach out to our team set out on this page.
For regional disputes matters, please see Rajah & Tann Asia’s Dispute Resolution Practice for more information.
Disclaimer
Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of member firms with local legal practices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Our Asian network also includes our regional office in China as well as regional desks focused on Brunei, Japan and South Asia. Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local requirements.
The contents of this publication are owned by Rajah & Tann Asia together with each of its member firms and are subject to all relevant protection (including but not limited to copyright protection) under the laws of each of the countries where the member firm operates and, through international treaties, other countries. No part of this publication may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, broadcast (including storage in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently for any purpose save as permitted herein) without the prior written permission of Rajah & Tann Asia or its respective member firms.
Please note also that whilst the information in this publication is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as legal advice or a substitute for specific professional advice for any particular course of action as such information may not suit your specific business and operational requirements. You should seek legal advice for your specific situation. In addition, the information in this publication does not create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on the information in this publication.
