Chin Aik Resources Sdn Bhd v Mastermark Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wong Peck
• Judgment Date: 16 April 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGMC 3
• Court: Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Magistrate’s Court No. 21343 of 2013, RA No. 22 of 2014, RAS No. 61 of 2014
• Year: 2014
• Published date: 16 May 2014
• Hearing Date: 02 April 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Earnest Lau ( M/s Chancery Law Corporation)
• Defendant Counsel: Ms Carolyn Tan and Mr Tony Au (M/s Tan Au LLP)
• Citation: [2014] SGMC 3

District Judge Wong Peck: Background

The Plaintiffs contracted to sell 2,500 tubes of bird free repellent gels (“gels”) to the Defendants for a sum of USD $ 63,000. In the amended Statement of Claim, payment for the gels was stated to be in 2 stages; first was 10% payment by 15 March 2011 and the balance 90% by 15 June 2011. Upon delivery of the gels to the Defendants, the Defendants proceeded to make a series of 4 part payments totaling USD $ 26,300 to the Plaintiffs. This left a balance of USD $36,700 unpaid. As a result, the Plaintiffs instituted the present suit against the Defendants claiming a liquidated sum of USD $36,700 with the usual interest and costs.

The Plaintiffs obtained summary judgment before the Deputy Registrar. The Defendants appealed against that decision and I heard the appeal on 2 April 2014. At the hearing, the Defendants sought leave to file a fresh affidavit containing many assertions of how in their opinion the Deputy Registrar had erred in his decision and even produced a few emails as well as a series of documents dating to 2011 such as the Bill of Lading, Commercial invoice from the Korean manufacturer, insurance documents etc. I declined to grant leave to admit this fresh affidavit and after hearing parties on the merits of the appeal, I dismissed the appeal. On 4 April 2014, the Defendants filed an appeal against my decision. Before I proceed to give written grounds for my decision to grant summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiffs, I will first deal with the application by the Defendants to admit the fresh affidavit filed on 1 April 2014 by Christopher Wee Jin Wei, a director of the Defendants.

Application to admit fresh affidavit filed on 1April 2014

Parties were in agreement that leave of court was required in order to admit this fresh affidavit as it was filed after summary judgment was granted by the Deputy Registrar. The affidavit was filed and served on the Plaintiffs’ counsel one day before the hearing conducted by me. The Plaintiffs’ counsel took objection as the evidence in the Defendants’ affidavit was at best equivocal and much of which should have surfaced earlier and due to the shortness of time, the Plaintiffs had not seen the affidavit and the Plaintiffs’ counsel had not been able to take instructions.

The Defendants’ counsel produced the relevant case authorities and outlined the considerations that the court should apply when making the decision whether to grant leave. In the Court of Appeal decision of Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte Ltd [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1053, distinction was made between 2 categories of cases. In the first category, the judge in chambers has a broader discretion to admit new evidence as compared to the second category where the registrar has conducted proceedings akin to a trial such as an assessment of damages or taking of accounts. In the latter situation, the Ladd v Marshall principles could be justified because all parties had a full opportunity to present all the necessary evidence. Subsequently in WBG Network (S) Pte Ltd v Sunny Daisy Ltd [2007] 1 SLR 1133, the Court of Appeal clarified that in the first category, the judge would be “entitled, though not obliged” to apply the Ladd v Marshall conditions. In WBG, which was an appeal against summary judgment granted by the judge in chambers, the Court of Appeal concluded that the judge could have applied the Ladd v Marshall conditions and would have been entitled to reject the new evidence for failing to satisfy the first condition.

The Ladd v Marshall principles have been succinctly summarized by Judith Prakash J in Sunny Daisy Ltd v WBG Network ( Singapore) Pte Ltd [2006] SGHC 130 at 13:

“ (a) the new evidence must be such that, if given, it would probably have had an important influence on the...