LIMITATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

6.51 p.m.

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Deputy Speaker, Sir, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Sir, the main purpose of this Bill is to effect a simplification and, I hope, an improvement in the law relating to the limitation of actions. The present law in Singapore is based on the Indian law, which was passed in 1877 in India and was introduced into the former Straits Settlements in 1896. The Indian Act and the whole law is extremely complicated. It lists over 100 different kinds of actions and provides varying periods of limitation, varying from one year up to 60 years. Many of the variations are extremely arbitrary and the Indian courts have varied in their interpretation of the Act. The complication of the laws has given rise to the need for bulky commentaries. In an introduction to one of these commentaries, Mr Justice Walsh said: "Was it necessary in order to prevent a man from sleeping over his rights to devise 183 methods of defeating him, or is it to be that in order to appreciate the right interpretation of these 183 methods, a lawyer should be forced to investigate no less than 8,000 reported decisions?"

[Mr Speaker in the Chair]

The Minister for Labour and Law (Mr K. M. Byrne): Mr Speaker, Sir, in the Federation, a committee was set up in 1950 to consider the law relating to limitations. This committee recommended the adoption of the English law of limitations as contained in the Limitation Act of 1939. As a result, the Federation, in 1953, enacted the Limitation Ordinance. The Singapore Bar Committee has also considered the matter and has recommended that legislation on the lines of the English Limitation Act, 1939, and the Federation Limitation Ordinance, 1953, be enacted in Singapore.

The broad principle of the Bill is simple. It makes the limitation period for nearly all actions six years. The principle exceptions to this rule are:

1. In the case of actions on judgments;

2. Actions to recover land; and

3. Actions to recover money secured on a mortgage or charge of land or personal property.

The period of limitation proposed is 12 years.

In the case of actions to recover a penalty or forfeiture under any written law (not being a criminal fine) and actions arising out of certain revenue matters, the period of limitation proposed is one year.

The Explanatory Statement to the Bill, Sir, sets out in some detail the principal provisions of the Bill, and I do not propose to repeat what is stated there. I commend the Bill as one which will help to make this particular branch of the law simpler and one which can be clearly understood not only by lawyers but by the public at large.

Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole Assembly.

Assembly immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill.-[Mr Byrne].

Bill considered in Committee.

6.55 p.m.

Clauses 1 to 9 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 -

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 6, to leave out lines 1 to 11 inclusive.

The reason for this, Mr Speaker, Sir, is that this sub-clause is the exact duplication of clause 14 of the Bill, and is therefore unnecessary.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 11 to 17 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 18 -

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, I beg to move,

In page 9, line 39, to leave out "At" and insert "Subject to the provisions of section 12 of this Ordinance at".

This is necessary, Sir, because clause 18 is related to clause 12 (2) and it would be necessary to make a reference to clause 12 (2) in clause 18.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 18, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 19 to 36 inclusive ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported with amendments; read the Third time and passed.