Loh Poh Lai (trading as Edmund Dawn Marine Engineering) v Wei Sheng Marine Services Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 15 October 1996
• Date: 15 October 1996
• Docket Number: Suit No 1610 of 1995 (Registrar's Appeal No 49 of 1996)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Loh Poh Lai (trading as Edmund Dawn Marine Engineering)

Plaintiff

and

Wei Sheng Marine Services Pte Ltd

Defendant

[1996] SGHC 234

Lai Kew Chai J

Suit No 1610 of 1995 (Registrar's Appeal No 49 of 1996)

High Court

Civil Procedure–Judgments and orders–Default judgment–No appearance–Proceedings to set aside default judgment–Defective service argued–Fraudulent contract alleged–Whether judgment to be set aside depending on evidence of real prospect of success and which carried some degree of conviction–Civil Procedure–Service–Error in affidavit of service–Error corrected subsequently in further affidavit–Whether default judgment entered thereby not irregular since defendant not misled–Civil Procedure–Service–Company not operating at registered office–Whether service effective if served to company's registered office–Onus on company to ensure system for documents delivered to registered office to reach it–Section 387 Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff obtained judgment against the defendant in default of appearance. He proceeded to garnish the moneys in the defendant's bank account. The defendant applied to set aside the default judgment and the garnishee order arguing that the default judgment was irregular due to defective service. The defendant also argued that it had a good defence on the merits. The assistant registrar set aside the default judgment and the garnishee order and the plaintiff appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The writ, served at the registered address of the defendant, was good service under s 387 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed), even if the defendant had ceased to have any link with its registered office. Besides, here, the defendant had its own “system” of obtaining documents served or delivered to its registered office: at [4] and [5].

(2) An error in the affidavit of service was corrected in a subsequent affidavit by the service clerk. It was a mere slip and the defendant was not misled by the error: at [7].

(3) The contract on which the plaintiff claimed judgment was not forged as alleged by the defendant. There was no basis to deny the existence of a contract between the parties. The defendant failed to show that it had a real prospect of success and which carried some degree of conviction: at [14] and [21].

Abdul Gaffer bin Fathil v Chua Kwang Yong [1994] 3 SLR (R) 1056; [1995] 1 SLR 484 (folld)

Sabatier v The Trading Company [1927] 1 Ch 495 (folld)

Companies Act (Cap 50,1994 Rev Ed)s 387 (consd)

Rules of Court 1996,TheO 13r 7 (1) (b)

Anthony Lee (Bih Li & Lee) for the plaintiff

Richard Bangras (Kong & Lim) for the defendant.

Lai Kew Chai J

1 On 22 September 1995 the plaintiff obtained judgment in default of appearance against the defendants in the sum of $525,200, interest thereon at 8% per annum from 13 September 1995 being the date of the writ of summons up to the date of the judgment and costs of $1,000. On 18 October 1995 the plaintiff garnished all available moneys in the defendants' bank account amounting to $300,637.42.

2 By summons in chambers entered No 6629/1995 filed on 19 October 1995, which was amended by order of court and re-filed on 16 February 1996, the defendants applied for an order that the judgment entered in default of appearance be set aside on the ground that the judgment was irregular. The defendants relied on the instances of irregularity as stated in the application, to which I shall return in detail later. The defendants, as required, sought to demonstrate that they had a good defence on the merits and again I shall have to return to the depositions and reasons later. In the same application, the defendants further asked that the garnishee order, for the reasons given, be set aside. After the hearing before the assistant registrar on 8 February 1996 the judgment in default and the garnishee proceedings were set aside. However, the return of the moneys under the garnishee proceedings was stayed pending an appeal to the High Court. At the conclusion of the appeal before me, I allowed the plaintiff's appeal and reinstated the judgment entered in default and the garnishee order. I now give my reasons.

The attack on the judgment

3 The...