Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale v Dato Azlan bin Hashim
Judge | MPH Rubin J |
Judgment Date | 09 September 2002 |
Neutral Citation | [2002] SGHC 207 |
Citation | [2002] SGHC 207 |
Defendant Counsel | Alfred Tan (Alfred Tan & Co ) |
Published date | 19 September 2003 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Fan Kin Ning ( William Lai & Alan Wong ) |
Date | 09 September 2002 |
Docket Number | Suit No 1322 of 2001 (Registrar's |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Subject Matter | Application to amend judgment to reflect correct amount,Sch 1 para 14 Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed),Whether court has jurisdiction to amend judgment,Civil Procedure,Entering of summary judgment for sum greater than that due,O 20 r 11 Rules of Court,Judgments and orders |
Civil Procedure – Judgments and orders – Amendment – Judgment entered for sum greater than what was due – Jurisdiction of court to amend judgment – Whether jurisdiction existed – Rules of Court O 20, r 11 – Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322), First Schedule, para 14.
Facts
The plaintiff bankers applied for and obtained summary judgment against the defendant for a sum of US$416,049.11 and interest owing to them. It was later discovered that the defendants had remitted to the plaintiffs a sum of US$50,000 before the hearing for summary judgment, but due to an oversight on the part of the plaintiffs’ loan recovery department, this receipt was not communicated to the plaintiffs’ solicitors when he appeared in court to argue the summary judgment application. The defendant’s counsel, who was also present at the hearing, did not inform the court of the payment. The plaintiffs applied to amend the judgment, contending that the judgment was signed for a sum in excess of what was due or owing to them. The deputy registrar disallowed the plaintiff’s application on the basis that O 20, r 11 of the Rules of Court was inapplicable. The plaintiffs appealed.
Held
, allowing the appeal(1) The court is empowered under O 20 r 11 to amend a judgment entered, when it is established that the slip or omission was accidental and that such an amendment was not to the disadvantage of the other party. Here the amendment was not to the disadvantage of the defendant/ respondent and he did not oppose the plaintiffs/ appellants’ application (see 14).
(2) Paragraph 14 to the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act provides that the High Court shall have the ‘powers to grant all reliefs and remedies at law and in equity’. These additional powers conferred on the High Court are a useful adjunct which the court may draw upon as necessary where it is just or equitable to do so (see 15).
(3) The plaintiffs/ appellants’ explanation that the error was occasioned by an accidental lapse in communication, not at the time the claim was presented, but later when the application was in train, appeared to have considerable merit (see 15).
Case(s) referred to
Armitage v Parsons
[1908] 2 KB 410 (refd)Law Ming Hing Richard v Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Bhd
[1994] 2 MLJ 323 (refd)Navimprex Centrala Navala v George Moundreas & Co SA
[1983] 127 Sol J 392 (folld)Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet Miaw
[1988] 3 MLJ 61 (folld)Legislation referred to
Rules of Court O 19 r 9, O 20 r 11
Rules of the Supreme Court [UK] O 20 r 11
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) First Schedule, para 14
Judgment
GROUNDS OF DECISION
The issue
1 The issue for determination in this registrar’s appeal was whether the court has the jurisdiction to amend a judgment entered in favour of the plaintiffs, for an amount in excess of what was in fact due, upon the application of the plaintiffs themselves, owing to an admitted accidental error on their part.
Brief facts
2 The circumstances which gave rise to this appeal were as follows. The plaintiff bankers brought an action against the defendant for a sum of US$416,049.11 and interest owing to them, upon recall of facilities granted to the defendant. After appearance had been entered, the plaintiffs applied to the court for summary judgment on the ground that the defendant had no defence to the plaintiffs’ claim. The application was heard by the assistant registrar on 15 February 2002; judgment was entered for the amount claimed and there was no appeal against that decision.
3 The matter did not, however, end there. It would seem that after the plaintiffs had applied to the court on 8 January 2002 for summary judgment but before it was heard on 15 February 2002, the defendant remitted to the plaintiffs a sum of US$50,000. Due to an oversight on the part of the plaintiffs’ loan recovery department, this latest receipt was not communicated to the plaintiffs’ solicitors when the latter appeared in court to argue the summary judgment application. The defendant’s counsel, who was also present at the hearing, did not bring to the attention of the court of the latest payment. The upshot was that judgment entered on 15 February 2002 in favour of the plaintiffs was in excess of US$50,000 actually due and owing as of 15 February 2002. It must be presently observed, however, that on the date when the plaintiffs applied to the court ie on 8 January 2002 for summary judgment, the claimed amount was correct.
4 Admitting their oversight, the plaintiffs applied to the court to amend the judgment to reflect the correct amount due and owing as of 15 February 2002 from the defendant. The plaintiffs’ assistant vice president and head of the loan recovery department averred in his supporting affidavit that the slip was due to an oversight on the part of his department; the present application for an amendment was to reflect the actual amount due from the defendant currently; and that the proposed amendment was to the benefit and advantage rather than to the detriment or prejudice of the defendant.
5 It is perhaps relevant at this stage to mention that, in the meantime, the defendant also applied to the court to set aside the judgment so entered and to stay the action, not on account of the irregularity based on the excess sum, but on other grounds which need not be particularised here. The deputy registrar, having heard arguments on 14 June 2002, found the application of the defendant to be unmeritorious and dismissed it. There was no further appeal on this matter from the defendant. The deputy registrar also, on the same date, disallowed the plaintiffs’ application to amend the judgment. His minutes read: ‘O 20, r 11 is inapplicable.’
Appeal: Arguments and conclusion
6 On appeal, it was contended on behalf of the plaintiff-appellants that the judgment entered was overstated by US$50,000 due to a clerical error and the court had the requisite powers and jurisdiction to amend it under O 20 r 11 of the Rules of Court which provides: ‘Clerical mistakes in judgment or orders, or errors arising therein from any accidental slip or omission, may at any time be corrected by the court by summons without an appeal.’ Reliance was also based by counsel on a Singapore High Court decision (per Thean J) in Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet...
To continue reading
Request your trial- Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte Ltd
-
Canberra Development Pte Ltd v Mercurine Pte Ltd
...the correct sum (see Philip Securities v Yong Tet Miaw [1988] SLR 594; Bayersiche Landesbank Girozentrale v Dato Azlan bin Hashim [2002] 4 SLR 838), it did not follow that the court had no power at all to amend the judgment to reflect the correct sum where the plaintiff, who mistakenly beli......
-
Civil Procedure
...Inc (The Saudi Eagle)[1986] 2 Lloyd”s Rep 221. Amendment of judgment 6.62 In Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale v Dato Azlan bin Hashim[2002] 4 SLR 838, the court allowed a summary judgment to be amended pursuant to O 20 r 11 to reflect the actual sum due to the plaintiff. (The original fig......