Bernard Rada & Lee v Concrete Innovators Company Pte Ltd and Another
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judgment Date | 03 February 1995 |
| Date | 03 February 1995 |
| Docket Number | Originating Summons No 811 of 1993 |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
[1995] SGHC 29
Lai Kew Chai J
Originating Summons No 811 of 1993
High Court
Civil Procedure–Judgments and orders–Enforcement–Enforcement of consent judgment–Principles governing court's powers to enforce executory order of court in circumstances where there was mistake made by party against whom order was yet to be enforced
The applicant was a firm of solicitors who sought an order that the sum which it was holding as stakeholder, be disposed of in such manner as the court thought fit, and for an order granting interpleader relief. There were two competing claimants: the first claimant was a company (“the company”) and the second claimant (“the defendant”) was a sole proprietor who traded with the company and who was also a director and shareholder of the company.
The running account between the defendant and the company pursuant to these dealings allegedly showed that the defendant was in credit. In other proceedings, consent judgment was entered against the company in the sum of $1,343,000.84 with interest thereon at $823,707.18. By April 1993, $1.1m had been paid by the company to the defendant and on those figures, the amount owing to the defendant was $1,066,708.02. However, the company then contended that its accounting records showed that the sum owing was only $1,109,775.84 with interest thereon at $680,662.50. The difference between these two sets of accounts was $386,268.67. On 14 May 1993, following a meeting between the company and the defendant (“the meeting”), it was agreed in writing that this sum would be held by the applicant as stakeholder pending verification by the company's accountants as to the amount owing by the company to the defendant.
Held, ordering the second claimant/defendant not to enforce the consent judgment:
The documentary evidence established that there would have been an overpayment of the stakeholders' sum and the defendant was ordered not to enforce their consent judgment. At the meeting, it was clearly established that parties had agreed that the question whether there would be overpayment of the principal sum and the interest which would have accrued (ie the sum paid to the stakeholders) would be determined by the accountants. It was obviously agreed, by necessary implication, that if the accountants found that the company had overpaid this amount, the stakeholders would be obliged to pay it over to the company and vice versa. As the consent order or judgment was still executory, the court refused to enforce it as it would be inequitable to do so: at [17] and [18].
Mullins v Howell (1879) 11 Ch D 763 (refd)
Purcell v F C Trigell Ltd [1971] 1 QB 358 (refd)
Thwaite v Thwaite [1982] Fam 1; [1981] 3 WLR 96 (folld)
Nazim Khan (Martin & Partners) for the first claimant/plaintiff
Thevanathan Pillay (Lim Kiap Khee & Co) for the second claimant/defendant.
1 By this originating summons the applicants, a firm of solicitors who had acted as stakeholders, sought an order that the sum of $376,269.67, which they were holding as stakeholders, be disposed of in such manner as the court shall think fit. The applicants also asked for costs and for an order granting interpleaders' relief. There were two competing claimants: the first claimant was a company (“the company”) and the second claimant was a sole proprietor who was a director of the company and who traded with the company. He was ordered to be the defendant. The company was earlier ordered to be the plaintiffs in these interpleader proceedings. The originating summons came up for hearing before me on 3 February 1994.
2 According to the affidavits filed up to the date of hearing, it was indisputably clear that in truth and in fact the sum of $230,573 was never due and payable by the company to the defendant at the time when...
To continue reading
Request your trial