Lee Jia Yun v Barrie Tan
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Darryl Soh |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Allen & Gledhill LLP, Braddell Brothers LLP, Edmund Kronenburg, Glenn Ang, Ivan Khoo Yi, Mak Wei Munn, Tang Kai Qing |
Source: [2026] SGHCR 37, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Parties (2)
Case Significance
Lee Jia Yun v Barrie Tan [2026] SGHCR 37 was decided by AR Darryl Soh in the General Division of the High Court on 25 August 2026 (Originating Claim No 308 of 2025, Summons No 2676 of 2025), after hearings on 4 December 2025 and 16 January 2026. The claimant sued an Ear, Nose and Throat surgeon in negligence over a balloon tuboplasty performed on 26 July 2021, and the claim was commenced on 17 April 2025. Before filing a Defence, the defendant applied on 10 September 2025 to strike out the claim as time-barred under the Limitation Act 1959. The issue was whether the application could proceed when no limitation defence had been pleaded. The AR held the application premature, declined to dismiss it, and directed the defendant to file his Defence by 2 February 2026.
Summary
The General Division of the High Court (AR) considered a surgeon's application to strike out a patient's medical negligence claim as time-barred under the Limitation Act 1959, made before he had filed his Defence. The AR agreed with the claimant that the application was premature, since the limitation defence should first be pleaded. The application was not dismissed; the defendant was directed to file his Defence by 2 February 2026 and the hearing was adjourned.
What was Lee Jia Yun v Barrie Tan [2026] SGHCR 37 about?
A patient sued her ENT surgeon for medical negligence over a surgery on 26 July 2021. The surgeon applied to strike out the claim as time-barred before filing a Defence, and the court held that application premature.
Can a limitation defence found a striking out application before a Defence is filed under [2026] SGHCR 37?
Where the claimant objects, the AR held the defendant should first plead the limitation defence in a Defence before the striking out application is determined. The application was not dismissed, and the defendant was directed to file a Defence by 2 February 2026.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (3)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments on the same subject, most closely matched first.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHCR 37)