CIVIL LAW (AMENDMENT NO. 2) BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

3.53 p.m.

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

This Bill seeks to amend the law relating to the limitation of actions in respect of causes of action which survive against the estate of a deceased person. Section 7 (3) of the Civil Law Ordinance at present provides as follows:

`(3) No proceedings shall be maintainable in respect of a cause of action in tort which by virtue of this section has survived against the estate of a deceased person unless either -

(a) a proceedings against him in respect of that cause of action were pending at the date of his death; or

(b) the cause of action arose not earlier than six months before his death and proceedings are taken in respect thereof not later than six months after his personal representative took out representation.'.

Where proceedings are pending against the deceased at the date of his death, such proceedings will survive against his estate. In this case the ordinary period of limitation will apply and this, by virtue of section 6 of the Limitations Ordinance, 1959, is six years in the case of an action founded on a tort. Where proceedings are not pending against the deceased at the time of his death, the present law in Singapore is that the proceedings will survive against the estate of the deceased only if -

(1) the cause of action arose not earlier than six months before the death of the deceased, and

(2) proceedings in respect thereof are taken not later than six months after his personal representative took out representation.

The first provision, in effect, sets out the special period of limitation and therefore by virtue of section 3 of the Limitations Ordinance, 1959, that Ordinance will not be applicable. The effect of the provision is that if the tortfeasor dies more than six months after committing the tort and proceedings are not pending against him at the date of his death, the person injured will not be able to bring an action against the estate of the deceased tortfeasor because the cause of action arose earlier than six months before .his death. If, however, the tortfeasor dies four months or five months after committing the tort, the person injured can bring the action against the estate of the deceased tortfeasor at any time, because in this case the cause of action did not arise earlier than six months before the death of the tortfeasor. This provision has been removed in England by the Law Reform (Limitation of Actions etc.) Act of 1954, and in the Federation of Malaya the Civil Law Ordinance, 1956, does not include this provision. The Singapore Bar Committee has considered the matter and they have recommended that the law in Singapore be amended to bring it into line with that in England and the Federation of Malaya. It is not proposed to amend the other requirement-that the proceedings in respect of the cause of action must be taken not later than six months after the personal representative of the deceased has taken out representation.

The effect of the repeal of this provision will be that the general period of limitation of six years relating to actions in tort will apply, and that proceedings in respect of a cause of action in tort will survive against the estate of the deceased tortfeasor if either:-

(a) the cause of action was pending at the time of the death of the tortfeasor; or

(b) the proceedings in respect thereof are taken not later than six months after his personal representative took out representation.

Sir, I beg to move.

Question proposed.

Mr David Marshall: I appreciate the desire of the Minister to maintain conformity in matters of general principles both of the Federation and the United Kingdom. But what exercises my mind, Sir, is the difficulty of the estate of the deceased to defend an action in respect of a tort which may be four or five or six years old, at the time they receive notice of it.

I am not aware, Sir - it may well be because I have not assiduously perused the newspapers - that there had been any important number of cases where there is indication of injustice in this protection of the estate of a dead man against proceedings not in contract, Sir, as has been pointed out, but in tort for misconduct alleged to have been committed more than six months before his death. I am sure the Minister and all of us certainly appreciate that when a man is alive, he can defend himself in respect of these matters to a degree that possibly his representatives cannot. And I would ask the Minister to indicate, apart from the perfectly legitimate desire to keep in line with the Federation and the United Kingdom -have there, in fact, been any cases of hardship and, if so, to what extent have they been caused by the existing law? And whether the Minister has really directed his mind to the dangers which would arise to the dead man's estate if his name could be maligned? The point is, it is impossible to prevent fraudulent and false claims being made. It is extremely difficult for his estate to defend him if the allegation is five or six years ago he did something in respect of which no action has been taken until six months after his death.

These are matters of some importance on which I would appreciate clarification from the Minister.

Mr Speaker: Is there any other Member who wishes to speak? No. Mr Byrne.

Mr Byrne: Mr Speaker, Sir, all this was considered by the Bar Committee at the time it made its recommendation that this amendment be introduced. And for this reason, this Bill has been introduced.

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; reported, without amendment; read a Third time and passed.