Abdul Rahim Bin Abdul Majeed v Firuz Bin Samuri

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Leslie Chew
• Judgment Date: 23 July 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGDC 267
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court No. 661 of 2011, RA No. 78 of 2012, RAS No. 118 of 2012
• Published date: 24 January 2013
• Year: 2012
• Hearing Date: 19 June 2012,26 June 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Jeremy Gan / Mr Azmin (M/s Rajah & Tann LLP)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr S K Kumar (M/s S K Kumar Law Practice LLP)
• Citation: [2012] SGDC 267

District Judge Leslie Chew: Background

This appeal has an unfortunate history. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 4 June 2012. However on account of the medical leave of Defendant counsel, and Plaintiff Counsel not objecting, it was adjourned to 19 June 2012. Unfortunately, Defendant’s lawyers again wrote on 14 June to the Plaintiff lawyers to adjourn the matter because the specific lawyer dealing with the Defence was still on hospitalization leave.

On 19 June, in view of the Plaintiff’s objections to the further adjournment, Defendants appeared by Counsel Mr S K Kumar in lieu of Mr Krishna Moorthy who was on medical leave. Mr Kumar informed the court that he was applying for a further adjournment because firstly he was not prepared to argue the appeal and secondly because the matter involved a large amount of money. Mr Kumar also informed the court that he was at that time appearing in Court 37 and had stood down that matter in order to appear in this court. The Plaintiff registered their objection to any further adjournment. However, in view of the fact that Mr Krishna Moorthy was on medical leave and Mr Kumar not being ready to argue the appeal, in fairness, I allowed an adjournment of the matter notwithstanding the Plaintiff’s objection. The matter was therefore adjourned to 26 June 2012 (Mr Krishna Moorthy’s medical leave was to end on 24 June 2012). However I noted that there will be no further adjournments of the matter.

On 26 June 2012, unfortunately Defendant’s lawyers did not appear at all, without any explanation. Both the Plaintiff and the court waited for Defendant Counsel for 25 minutes from the scheduled hearing time of 11.30 am to no avail. Accordingly, this court dismissed the application on account of Mr Kumar’s absence and because no one had attended for the Defendant. The Plaintiff was also not inclined to wait any longer. After I dismissed the application on the basis I have referred to, neither Mr Kumar nor anyone else on behalf of the Defendant attended court right up till 1 pm that day.

Since the events which I have recounted above, the Defendant has appealed to the High Court. Before I deal with the substantive merits of the case, I make the observation that since I had dismissed the case not on merits but on account of the Defendant’s lawyers being absent, I would have thought the Defendant’s lawyers could have considered filing an application to have the order to dismiss set aside on the grounds that it did not decide any matter on merit and that Defendant had merits to his defence.

I now turn to the merits of the case. I am of the view that even if I had heard the matter substantively, I would have dismissed the appeal and confirmed the decision of the Deputy Registrar to grant summary judgment to the Plaintiff. I now give my reasons.

The Action

The claim by the Plaintiff in this case is in respect of a debt which Plaintiff says arises out of an outstanding balance due to him in connection with a loan he made to the Defendant. The claim is for the balance sum of $188,000.

According to the Plaintiff he had loaned the Defendant the sum of $370,000 the particulars of which are detailed in the Statement of Claim. Subsequently the Defendant had apparently repaid a $120,000 leaving behind a balance of $250,000. The parties...