Banque Nationale de Paris v Ng Kit Har and another action (Yii Chee Ming, Third Party)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 28 June 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 101
• Published date: 02 July 2007
• Year: 2007
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 101
• Defendant Counsel: Thio Shen Yi and Adeline Lee Huay Yen (TSMP Law Corporation),Cheah Kok Lim and Keh Kee Guan (Ang & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

28 June 2007

Choo Han Teck J:

1 These were appeals by the respective defendants in the consolidated actions in the above suits (“the Suits”) against the order of the Assistant Registrar Ms Denise Wong (“the AR”) made on 3 January 2007, in which she set aside a previous order made on 17 November 2005 in which the defendants’ third party notices against the third party were reinstated. The third party notices were originally issued on 20 and 25 May 1999 (in the two Suits respectively) but had not been served. In the meantime, the consolidated action was tried between the plaintiff and the defendants before Amarjit Singh JC on 1 June 2000. The trial ended on 9 June 2000 and judgment was handed down in favour of the plaintiff. The defendants were ordered to pay US$4.7m to the plaintiff. Counsel informed me that as at the time of the hearing of these appeals before me, the judgment debt had not been paid but the plaintiff had not taken enforcement proceedings. No reason was given to explain why the defendants wished to resume their claim against the third party now and under the present circumstances where no enforcement proceedings had been taken or even threatened against them. No reason was given as to why the defendants took their time to proceed against the third party except Mr Thio’s submission that set out the difficulties the defendants had in effecting service against the third party. The question on this point is whether there is any reason or justification in accepting that the defendants had acted diligently and that the circumstances excused the delay.

2 The writs were filed on 3 March 1999 and 22 April 1999 respectively. Defence was filed on 3 May 1999 and the third party notices issued on 20 and 25 May 1999 respectively. In July 1999, a memorandum of appearance was filed on behalf of the third party and on 14 July 1999, the third party applied to set aside service of the third party notices. On 30 August 1999 the court set aside the service out of jurisdiction against the third party. On 13 March 2000 the defendants obtained an order for substituted service of the third party notices. On 16 May 2000 a pre-trial conference was held and there, the defendants agreed to proceed for trial without waiting for third party proceedings to be finalised. The trial ended with the judgment of Amarjit Singh JC on 9 June 2000. On 22 August 2002 the defendants purported to serve the third party notices by substituted service and an...