Changhe International Investments Pte Ltd (fka Druidstone Pte Ltd) v Banque International A Luxembourg Bil (Asia) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Amarjeet Singh JC
• Judgment Date: 04 August 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 158
• Docket Number: Suit No 1725 of 1999 (Registrar's
• Date: 04 August 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2000
• Plaintiff Counsel: Ong Lee Woei and Jacinthan Voon (Michael Khoo & Partners)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 158
• Defendant Counsel: Vinodh Coomaraswamy and David Chan (Shook Lin & Bok)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Case management unless order,Whether assistant registrar correct in not hearing application,Civil Procedure,Jurisdiction,Proper course to take upon default of unless order,Judgments and orders,Application to assistant registrar to overturn order of another assistant registrar,Default on unless order

: The appellants/plaintiffs (`the plaintiffs`) defaulted on an unless case management order (amongst others) made during pre-trial conference (PTC) by the Registrar to file their list of documents on or before 2 March 2000. The order had further stipulated that for failure to comply with any direction the action is dismissed with costs. The unless order also similarly required the respondents/defendants (`the defendants`) to file their list of documents in default of which their defence would be struck off and judgment entered for the plaintiffs. Whilst the defendants complied with the order, the plaintiffs did not.

The plaintiffs` default having arisen on 2 March 2000, the defendants` counsel made an inter partes application on 7 March 2000 by summons-in-chambers to perfect the unless order and accordingly asked for an order dismissing the plaintiffs` action as a result of the said unless order having become operative. The plaintiffs` counsel attended and submitted at the hearing before an assistant registrar on 8 March 2000. On that date, an order was made by the assistant registrar dismissing the plaintiffs` claim with costs as prayed for by the defendants. The plaintiffs` counsel did not appeal against that order.

Later, new solicitors were engaged by the plaintiffs. The plaintiffs` new counsel made an application on 9 June 2000 that the Registrar set aside the order of 8 March 2000. At the hearing on 14 June 2000, the defendants` solicitors had submitted that the plaintiffs` solicitors should have appealed and that the effect of the application asking for relief to overturn the order of 8 March 2000 was in fact an appeal to a fellow assistant registrar to overturn the order of another assistant registrar. The plaintiffs` rejoinder was that in the first place the order of 8 March 2000 should never have been sought by the defendants as there was already an unless order. I observed that the plaintiffs` counsel`s submission amounted to a concession that their default in respect of the unless order had already resulted in the dismissal of their suit. The assistant registrar after the hearing on the point of jurisdiction, dismissed the plaintiffs` application without hearing the merits.

The plaintiffs appealed. Very much the same submissions were made before me at the hearing of the appeal.

Having heard all the submissions, I was satisfied that the order of 8 March 2000 by the assistant registrar was right. Procedurally, the assistant registrar...