Lea Tool and Moulding Industries Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v CGU International Insurance plc (formerly known as Commercial Union Assurance Co plc)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 20 November 2000
• Neutral Citation: [2000] SGHC 241
• Docket Number: Suit No 1149 of 1993
• Date: 20 November 2000
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 2000
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Bok Hoay and Sharon Tay (Donaldson & Burkinshaw)
• Citation: [2000] SGHC 241
• Defendant Counsel: Anthony Soh and Carrie Gill (Azman Soh & Murugaiyan)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Unless orders,Setting aside irregular judgment,Rules of court,Whether corporate litigants may act without solicitors in legal proceedings,Non-compliance,Civil Procedure,Judgments and orders,O 5 r 6(2)Rules of Court,Default judgment pursuant to non-compliance with unless order

: In July 1992, the plaintiffs took up a fire insurance policy with the defendants to insure their factory, stocks, plant and machinery. On 2 August 1992 a fire at the plaintiff`s factory destroyed it and its contents. On 26 May 1993 the plaintiffs commenced these proceedings claiming the liquidated sum of $1,473,320.00, or alternatively, damages to be assessed.

On 1 April 1997 a default judgment was entered pursuant to an unless order of the Registrar of the Supreme Court. I will revert to the circumstances in due course. Nearly three years later, and in fact on 10 March 2000, the plaintiffs by SIC 501221/2000 applied to the Registrar seeking an order to set aside the judgment entered on 1 April 1997 whereby the plaintiffs` action was ordered to be dismissed with costs. The application was dismissed by the assistant registrar with costs fixed at $1,500 and the plaintiffs appealed to the judge-in-chambers. I heard the appeal and on 15 May 2000 I dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $4,000. The plaintiffs requested for further arguments. I acceded to their request and heard further arguments. On 26 June 2000, after hearing further arguments, I reversed my earlier orders. I allowed the appeal, set aside the default judgment of 1 April 1997 and the orders of the assistant registrar. I now set out the relevant procedural history giving rise to the appeal and the reasons why, after hearing further arguments, I made the orders I did.

The background and procedural history

The plaintiffs (`Lea Tool`) were represented by Wong Meng Meng & Partners who filed a writ of summons claiming $2,460,000 for losses and damages to property under the fire policy. The claim was subsequently amended in July 1996 to $1,473,320, about half of the original sum. Donaldson & Burkinshaw acted for the defendants (`CGU`). By December 1993 pleadings were closed. Lea Tool attempted to obtain summary judgment and they failed. They were in financial strait jacket and their financial problems culminated in their liquidation and, not unexpectedly, they were experiencing financial difficulties in meeting the usual expenses of litigation. In October 1994 their solicitors obtained an order discharging themselves from further acting for Lea Tool. Until 31 July 1995 no further steps were taken in the case.

On 31 July 1995, Lea Tool finally appointed Azman Soh & Murugaiyan as their new solicitors. On 11 September 1996 the Registrar of the Supreme Court directed Lea Tool to set down the action for trial by 6 December 1996. Under the then Rules of Court, and as directed, Azman Soh & Murugaiyan would have had to file their as well as the CGU`s bundles of bocuments. Lea Tool`s solicitors set down the action without filing CGU`s bundle of documents required under O 34 r 3(1)(e) of the Rules of Court (`the Rules`).

The Registrar of the Supreme Court fixed trial dates for six days between 19 May 1997 and 27 May 1997. The solicitors for CGU sent repeated reminders to Lea Tool`s solicitors to file the defendants` (CGU`s) bundle of documents in compliance with the rules. There was no reply from Lea Tool. As it transpired, Lea Tool had not paid their solicitors and, inevitably, on 27 February 1997 Azman Soh & Murugaiyan were discharged by order of court from having to act for Lea Tool.

On 1 March 1997, Azman Soh & Murugaiyan wrote to the Registrar of the Supreme Court and applied for a one week adjournment of Pre-Trial Conference (PTC) No 6 fixed for 4 March 1997. They informed the Registrar that Lea Tool needed the time to appoint another firm of solicitors to act for them. PTC No 6 was adjourned by the Registrar to 13 March 1997. According to the correspondence Lea Tool intended to appoint Wilfred Yeo Quahe & Tan in place of Azman Soh & Murugaiyan. But the appointment was not finalised; more likely than not, fee arrangements were not dealt with to the satisfaction of both lawyers and Lea Tool.

At the PTC No 6 held on 13 March 1997 before the Registrar, no counsel for Lea Tool appeared. Mr Tan Bok Hoay of Donaldson & Burkinshaw appeared as counsel for CGU. Pursuant to his powers under O 34A r 2(3) of the Rules of Court, the Registrar made an unless order under which leave was granted to Lea Tool to comply with O 34 r 3 of the Rules of Court by 27 March, failing which Lea Tool`s action would be dismissed with costs. Mr Tan met Mr Tham Weng Key of Lea Tool in person and Mr Anthony of Azman Soh & Murugaiyan outside the chambers of the Registrar. It was not disputed that Mr Tan gave notice of the unless order. Mr Tan took care to give written notice by his firm`s letter of 14 March 1997.

On 26 March 1997 an important step was in substance taken by Lea Tool. Mr Tham on behalf of Lea Tool personally filed a bundle of documents. On behalf of CGU Mr Tan drew attention to O 5 r 6(2) of the Rules of Court which provided to this effect: `Except as expressly provided by or under any written law, a body corporate may not begin or carry on such proceedings otherwise than by a solicitor.` He took the view that filing the bundle of documents was `a procedural step that (was) part of a larger action`. He therefore came to the view that Lea Tool could not properly file CGU`s...