Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd and another appeal and another application
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chan Sek Keong CJ |
Judgment Date | 22 February 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGCA 5 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Goh Kok Leong and Sunita Carmel Netto (Ang & Partners) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeals Nos 108 and 109 of 2008 and Summons No 416 of 2009 |
Date | 22 February 2010 |
Hearing Date | 22 October 2009,09 September 2009 |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure |
Year | 2010 |
Citation | [2010] SGCA 5 |
Defendant Counsel | Lek Siang Pheng, Tan Ky Won Terence and Melissa Thng Hui Lin (Rodyk & Davidson LLP) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Published date | 03 March 2010 |
Hwa Lai Heng Ricky (“the Appellant”) took out two related appeals against the decision of the High Court in
SY Industries wished to purchase certain machine units from a company known as Yamazaki Mazak Singapore Pte Ltd (“Yamazaki”). The Respondent was willing to finance part of that purchase through a loan amounting to $1.94 million (“the Loan”), provided that,
On 16 December 2002, at the request of SY Industries, the Appellant, who was then an assistant sales manager of Yamazaki, wrote a letter to the Respondent. In that letter, he falsely represented that Yamazaki had received certain payments from SY Industries which amounted to 40 per cent or more of the purchase price. In reality, all that Yamazaki had received were post-dated cheques that had not yet been cleared. However, on 10 March 2003, the Respondent, who had been deceived by the Appellant’s letter, disbursed the full Loan quantum of $1.94 million to SY Industries. SY Industries proved to be financially unsound. Most of the post-dated cheques SY Industries issued to Yamazaki could not be cleared. Further, SY Industries never paid any of the instalments that were due to the Respondent, and, by 26 March 2004, a winding up order had been made against the former in the High Court.
The Appellant was prosecuted for cheating. On 23 June 2005, he was convicted by the District Court. That decision was upheld on appeal (see
The Respondent succeeded in obtaining summary judgment against the Appellant on 18 March 2008. The learned Assistant Registrar (“the AR”) granted the application because: (i) the findings of the criminal court coincided with all the essential ingredients in the Respondent’s cause of action; and (ii) the Appellant had not managed to raise any viable defences. In coming to his decision, the AR refused to take into account certain defences the Appellant had raised, namely that:
Following the AR’s decision, the Appellant applied to amend his Defence to include the points above which the AR had not taken into account. The application was heard by the learned Senior Assistant Registrar (“the SAR”), who dismissed the application. The basis of the SAR’s decision was that: (i) the amendments had been prayed for only post-summary judgment; and (ii) the proposed defences, in any event, were not viable and would not have changed the outcome of the decision to award the Respondent summary judgment.
Dissatisfied with the outcome, the Appellant appealed against the decisions of the AR and SAR in the High Court. Both appeals were dismissed, also essentially on the basis that none of the points raised by the Appellant had any merit. However, as 26 of the 31 machine units had been recovered by the Respondents and sold, the Judge rightly reduced the judgment sum of $1.94 million entered by the AR by the net sales proceeds of the 26 machines (
Consequently, the Appellant brought before us CA 108 (against the decision of the High Court with respect to the summary judgment) and CA 109 (with respect to the decision of the High Court in respect of the application to amend his Defence). The Respondent subsequently took out SUM 416 (for an extension of time to file its case and to adduce further evidence). These have already been briefly mentioned above (at
As already mentioned, we heard both CA 109 and SUM 416 together, not least because they were, of course, closely related.
In so far as the appeal in CA 109 is concerned, the general approach which ought to be taken towards amendments of pleadings in the
While a court may have a wide power of amendment even after a final judgment, the appropriate cases in which such a power should be exercised must necessarily be very limited. Whether or not a court should do so will be in the discretion of the court, and will depend on the facts of each case, including in particular the nature and implications of the amendment sought. In all cases, a court will have to bear in mind the fundamental principle of all courts that there must be a finality to litigation.
Whilst finality is important, there is, as V K Rajah JC very pertinently pointed out in the High Court decision of
[T]o allow an amendment before a trial begins is quite different from allowing it at the end of the trial to give an apparently unsuccessful defendant an opportunity to renew the fight on an entirely different defence.
And, in the recent decision of this court in
Subject to Order 15, Rules 6, 6A, 7 and 8, and this Rule, the Court may
at any stage of the proceedings allow the plaintiff to amend his writ, or any party to amend his pleading,on such terms as to costs or otherwise as may be just and in such manner (if any) as it may direct . [emphasis added]
Under O 20 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed), the court may grant leave to amend a...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Holcim (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Precise Development Pte Ltd and another application
...can be laid down on this. [emphasis added] Reference may also be made to the decision of this court in Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd [2010] 2 SLR 710, which cited and applied the abovementioned principles. Having regard to the principles set out in the preceding paragraphs, we are of th......
-
Ng Bee Choo @ Ng Catherine v Mary Hoe-Tan and Anor
...of an appeal itself: Asia Business; and after summary judgment had been given: Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd and another appeal [2010] 2 SLR 710 Mary and Jee Mean had not shown how the amendments would prejudice or cause injustice to them. The nub of the matter was that Mary had pleaded......
-
Holcim (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Precise Development Pte Ltd and another application
...can be laid down on this. [emphasis added] Reference may also be made to the decision of this court in Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd [2010] 2 SLR 710, which cited and applied the abovementioned principles. Having regard to the principles set out in the preceding paragraphs, we are of th......
-
Ku Swee Boon (trading as Norb Creative Studio) v Thu Aung Zaw
...granted, and also allow the Defendant to amend his defence. Relying on the Court of Appeal decision in Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd [2010] 2 SLR 710 (and several other cases cited therein) which held that while a court may have a wide power of amendment even after final judgment, the a......
-
Civil Procedure
...Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong [2010] 1 SLR 52 (‘Review Publishing Co Ltd’) at [113] and Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd [2010] 2 SLR 710 (‘Hwa Lai Heng Ricky’) at [12]). The courts differentiate between an amendment that merely clarifies an issue in dispute and one that raise......