Jim Thian Siong v Randhir Singh

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Federal Court (Singapore)
• Judgment Date: 11 October 1966
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No Y31 of 1966
• Date: 11 October 1966

Jim Thian Siong and another

Plaintiff

and

Randhir Singh

Defendant

[1966] SGFC 18

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

Tan Ah Tah FJ

and

JW D Ambrose J

Civil Appeal No Y31 of 1966

Federal Court

Civil Procedure–Judgments and orders–Judgment in default of appearance–Application to set aside judgment–Application granted on condition that amount claimed paid into court–Whether condition should be allowed to stand

The respondent commenced an action against the appellants and obtained judgment in default of appearance. The appellants applied to set aside the default judgment and for leave to defend the action. The application was allowed on condition that the amount claimed be paid into court within 21 days from the date of the hearing of the application. The appellants appealed against the condition imposed.

Held, allowing the appeal:

The condition imposed amounted to a denial of justice in that the appellants would be unable to comply and would therefore be prevented from defending the action. The appellants would be adequately penalised by imposing a term that they must pay all costs thrown away as a result of their failure to enter an appearance: at [2].

K K Bezboruah (K K Bezboruah) for the appellants

RMurugason (Murugason & Co) for the respondent.

Wee Chong Jin CJ

(delivering the oral judgment of the court):

1 The respondent commenced an action in January this year against the appellants. It is a claim in respect of a money lending transaction. The appellants though served did not enter any appearance and about four months later judgment in default of appearance was entered against both appellants for the sum claimed. Subsequently execution was levied and following on this process, the appellants took out an application which was heard by Buttrose J to set aside the default judgment and asking for leave to defend the action. In support of that application an affidavit was filed which discloses, in our opin- ion, a prima facie defence to the action commenced by the moneylender against the defendants. Buttrose J allowed the application in that he gave leave to defend the action but upon condition that the amount claimed in the action should be paid into court within 21 days from the date of the hearing of the application. It is against that part of the order of Buttrose J imposing a condition that the appellants now appeal.

2 It seems to us quite clear on the facts and in the particular circumstances of this case that if the...