LEE HUI CHIN v CHUBB INSURANCE SINGAPORE LIMITED
Outcome
Application allowedI allowed the application.
Source: [2024] SGHC 69, High Court (General Division), decided 14 March 2024. Read directly from the judgment.
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Chua Lee Ming |
| Charges / claim | Arbitration |
| Outcome | Application allowed |
| Counsel | Lee Shergill LLP, Legal Solutions LLC, Chua Gek Yee, Kevin Kwek Yiu Wing, Raj Singh Shergill, Sourish Sinha, Tan Yiting Gina |
Source: [2024] SGHC 69, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Case Significance
Lee Hui Chin v Chubb Insurance Singapore Ltd [2024] SGHC 69 was decided by the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 14 March 2024, in Originating Application No 902 of 2023, with grounds of decision delivered by Chua Lee Ming J following a hearing on 1 November 2023. The applicant, Mdm Lee Hui Chin, applied under s 10 of the Arbitration Act 2001 (2020 Rev Ed) to extend the time fixed by the terms of an arbitration agreement for referring disputes to arbitration, and the court granted the application. According to the judgment, the applicant was the policyholder of two insurance policies taken out with the respondent, Chubb Insurance Singapore Limited, under which the insured person was the applicant's spouse (the "Deceased"). The policies provided for Accidental Death Benefits payable in the event of death resulting from accidental injury, and required any dispute to be referred to arbitration commenced three months from the day the parties were unable to settle it. The judgment records that on 2 April 2021 the Deceased fell while riding his bicycle and was found unconscious in an uncovered drain, was brought to Ng Teng Fong General Hospital, remained unconscious until removed from life support on 9 April 2021, and passed away thereafter; his daughter Ms Rachel Teng was referred to in the account of events. The catchwords record that the case concerned an extension of time for the commencement of arbitration. The applicant was represented by Raj Singh Shergill and Chua Gek Yee of Lee Shergill LLP, with the respondent represented by counsel including Kevin Kwek Yiu Wing, Sourish Sinha and Tan Yiting Gina of Legal Solutions LLC. The judgment also referenced the Arbitration Act and the Foreign Limitation Periods Act.
Summary
Mdm Lee Hui Chin, the policyholder of two insurance policies with Chubb Insurance Singapore Limited under which her late spouse was the insured person, applied under s 10 of the Arbitration Act 2001 to extend the time fixed by the arbitration agreement to refer to arbitration a dispute over rejected accidental death benefit claims following her spouse's death after a cycling fall. The issue was whether an extension of time to commence arbitration should be granted. The court granted the application, finding among other things that the claims were significant in value, not obviously unsustainable in light of medical opinion, and that the hardship to the applicant outweighed depriving the respondent of its contractual time bar, and ordered the applicant to pay costs of $10,000.
What was Lee Hui Chin v Chubb Insurance Singapore Ltd [2024] SGHC 69 about?
It was a General Division of the High Court application, with grounds delivered 14 March 2024 by Chua Lee Ming J, under s 10 of the Arbitration Act 2001 to extend the time fixed by an arbitration agreement for referring an insurance dispute to arbitration. The court granted the application.
What insurance dispute underlay [2024] SGHC 69?
The applicant held two Chubb Insurance Singapore policies on her spouse providing Accidental Death Benefits. According to the judgment, the Deceased fell from his bicycle on 2 April 2021, was found unconscious in an uncovered drain, and passed away after being removed from life support on 9 April 2021.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (3)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 69)