SINGAPORE - After her dog was killed in an accident, a woman sued the car driver seeking damages for the death of her four-year-old Tibetan mastiff.

Ms Helen Debra Walker, who had spent $8,000 to import her dog Maximus from Hong Kong, was awarded $2,430 by a district judge in February.

The sum was based on the market value of the dog, taking into account a "depreciation discount".

Ms Walker wanted to file an appeal, but under court procedure, she had to first file an application in the State Courts for leave, or permission, to do that.

She missed the filing deadline by two days as she was grieving over the death of her husband a few days before the court decision.

Her lawyer then sought more time to file the leave application, but was told by the State Courts to file the request for a time extension at the High Court instead.

The High Court, however, in a judgment on Monday (May 10), said Ms Walker's lawyer was correct in initially filing her time extension application in the lower court.

The State Courts, in rejecting her initial application, had relied on a precedent involving a defendant who sought an extension of time to file an appeal.

But Justice Choo Han Teck said the precedent did not concern an extension of time for leave to appeal, and was "inapplicable to the present situation".

Justice Choo ordered the proceedings to be transferred back to the lower court to decide on Ms Walker's requests for a time extension and for permission to file the appeal.

On March 14, 2018, Ms Walker's two domestic workers were walking the family's two dogs when they were hit by a car driven by Ms Soh Poh Geok.

One helper's claim has been settled and the other one is ongoing.

The second dog, a labrador retriever named Ruby owned by Ms Walker's husband, was hurt in the accident.

The couple sued over Maximus' death and Ruby's injuries, but the appeal relating to Ruby can proceed only after probate has been granted in respect of the husband's estate.

According to Ms Walker, Maximus, which weighed 50kg, was adopted by the family while they were working in Hong Kong.

She claimed for the costs of acquiring a replacement dog and for cremation expenses.

The district judge held that dogs are the personal property of their owners, and only the market value of the dog was to be awarded, as opposed to the dog's value according to the owner.

Ms Walker sought compensation for pain and suffering caused by Maximus' death, but this was rejected by the district judge.

The district judge rejected the claim for replacement costs, since Ms Walker would not replace the family pets.

The district judge did not award $680 in cremation expenses, saying that there was no legal basis for such an order, unlike funeral expenses for humans.