HG Metal Manufacturing Ltd v Gayathri Steels Pte Ltd and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 31 August 2016
• Neutral Citation: [2016] SGHC 176
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sim Kwan Kiat and Zhao Jiawei (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP)
• Docket Number: HC/Suit No 152 of 2015(HC/Summons No 3953 of 2016)
• Date: 31 August 2016
• Hearing Date: 30 August 2016
• Subject Matter: Representation of Companies,Civil Procedure
• Year: 2016
• Defendant Counsel: The second defendant in-person.
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Citation: [2016] SGHC 176
• Published date: 07 September 2016

Choo Han Teck J:

This action is fixed for trial from 28 September 2016 for 6½ days. The plaintiff, represented by Mr Sim Kwan Kiat (“Mr Sim”) is suing for the price of steel sold to the first defendant, which is a private limited company incorporated in Singapore. The amount claimed by the plaintiff comprised of US$998,763.03 and S$411,647.21. The second defendant and his wife, the third defendant, are directors of the first defendant. They are sued by the plaintiff as guarantors of the transactions between the plaintiff and the first defendant for the purchase of steel. The trial was originally scheduled to commence in May 2017 but in March 2016 the parties were notified that the trial dates had been brought forward to end September 2016.

The defendants were initially represented by Bernard & Rada Law Corporation until 3 August 2016 when Bernard & Rada Law Corporation obtained leave to be discharged from acting for the defendants. The first defendant then applied by the present summons for leave to have the second defendant represent it at trial.

Mr Sim objected to the application on two grounds. First, he submitted that the first defendant’s application was defective. He argued that an application must be supported by an affidavit sworn by “any other officer of the company” as required under Order 1 r 9(4)(c) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed). This must be a different officer from the one that was intended to represent the company in the proceedings. The affidavit supporting this application was sworn by the second defendant who was the officer intended to represent the company. Secondly, Mr Sim submitted that there was no good reason offered by the defendant to justify this application. Accordingly, Mr Sim argued that the rule that a company must be represented by a lawyer at trial ought to be upheld in the present case.

The second defendant mainly justified the application on the basis of necessity because he had not been able to retain new lawyers for the first defendant ever since the discharge of their former counsel as the trial dates were too close. He further submitted that he felt capable of representing the facts of the case on behalf of the first defendant at trial since it was in his best interest to ensure that the first defendant succeeded in its defence. Finally, he stated that the defendants had no objections to Bernard & Rada Law Corporation representing them but it was the law firm that applied to be discharged and left them in the present state. I note that the second defendant did not offer a reason why the lawyers had discharged themselves.

Mr Sim, in response, submitted that the issues raised by the defendants in the counterclaim, apart from factual ones, included legal issues concerning estoppel and economic duress, among other claims in law. He submitted that...