Ng Kiam Bee v Ng Bee Eng

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date06 February 2013
Date06 February 2013
Docket NumberSuit No 873 of 2009 (Summonses Nos 3849 and 4094 of 2012)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Ng Kiam Bee
Plaintiff
and
Ng Bee Eng
Defendant

[2013] SGHC 31

Belinda Ang Saw Ean J

Suit No 873 of 2009 (Summonses Nos 3849 and 4094 of 2012)

High Court

Civil Procedure—Amendments—Judgments—Brother and sister entering into consent judgment for sale of flat jointly owned by them—Brother claiming that he had agreed to consent judgment based on his lawyer's estimate of sum that sister would receive under consent judgment—Whether consent judgment could be amended where flat was sold for higher price and sister would receive larger sum than estimated

The plaintiff and the defendant were brother and sister who jointly owned a public housing flat (‘the Flat’). The plaintiff commenced this action seeking a declaration that the defendant held her half-share of the Flat on trust for the plaintiff and an order that the defendant's half-share be transferred to the plaintiff. On 13 September 2010, the parties settled the dispute and the terms of their agreement were recorded in a consent judgment (‘the Consent Judgment’). The Consent Judgment provided, inter alia, for the Flat to be sold on the open market and the gross sale proceeds to be used to repay the plaintiff's Central Provident Fund (‘CPF’) principal sum exclusive of interest (‘the interest provision’).

On 27 July 2012, the plaintiff applied for an amendment of the interest provision under O 20 r 11 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed). In response, the defendant applied for an order that the Consent Judgment stands and that the plaintiff be made responsible for any late completion interest in relation to the sale of the Flat.

The plaintiff's position was that the settlement included a refund to the parties' respective CPF accounts of the principal sums withdrawn inclusive of all interest. During oral submissions, however, counsel for the plaintiff argued that the plaintiff had agreed to the interest provision because he was advised by his lawyer then that the interest provision would result in the defendant receiving about $27,000 under the Consent Judgment. As things turned out, the Flat was sold at a significantly higher price and the defendant was now insisting on receiving a larger sum than the sum which the plaintiff was told she would get.

Held, dismissing the plaintiff's application and making no order on the defendant's application:

(1) The court's handwritten minutes confirmed that the refund to the Plaintiff's CPF account from the gross sale proceeds of the Flat would not include any interest on the principal sum ithdrawn to purchase the Flat: at [9] .

(2) The court did not have the power to amend a consent judgment unless both parties mutually agreed to vary the consent judgment: at [15] .

(3) A party could not challenge a consent order on the basis that he was wrongly advised by his lawyer: at [16] .

(4) The plaintiff's argument went beyond a simple matter of amending an error on the face of the Consent Judgment by way of an application under O 20 r 11 of the Rules of Court. If the plaintiff wished to set aside the Consent Judgment, he would have to start a new action to prove that there were vitiating factors to warrant setting it aside: at [17] .

(5) The defendant's application was superfluous. The purchasers of the Flat did not claim late completion interest, and an order that the Consent Judgment was to stand was totally unnecessary since dismissing the plaintiff's application would leave the Consent Judgment intact: at [5] and [19] .

Kok Chee Min, Dr v Kan Choy Yoong [1994] 3 MLJ 210 (folld)

Visia Finance Bhd v Expert Credit & Leasing Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 MLJ 705 (folld)

Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 20 r 11

Keh Kee Guan (Pacific Law Corporation) for the plaintiff

Luke Lee (Luke Lee & Co) for the defendant.

Judgment reserved.

Belinda Ang Saw Ean J

Introduction

1 By Summons No 3849 of 2012 (‘SUM 3849/2012’), the plaintiff, Ng Kiam Bee (‘the Plaintiff’), applied to amend a consent judgment entered in Suit No 873 of 2009 (‘the Action’) on 13 September 2010 (‘the Consent Judgment’). In response, the defendant, Ng Bee Eng (‘the Defendant’), who is the Plaintiff's sister, filed Summons No 4094 of 2012 (‘SUM 4094/2012’).

Background facts

2 The brief background facts are as follows. In December 2009...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Siva Kumar s/o Avadiar v Quek Leng Chuang and others
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 5 November 2020
    ...of the Consent Order impossible. A consent order can be set aside if there is fraud or other vitiating factors: Ng Kiam Bee v Ng Bee Eng [2013] 2 SLR 442 at [15]. The court’s jurisdiction to interfere with consent judgments is, generally, a very limited one: Chiang Shirley v Chiang Dong Phe......
  • TEL v TEM
    • Singapore
    • Family Court (Singapore)
    • 30 June 2015
    ...(to allegedly reduce maintenance to $1,900) has superseded the Consent Maintenance Order cites the case of Ng Kiam Bee v Ng Bee Eng [2013] SGHC 31 and quotes from paragraph 15 of that judgment that “It is trite law that a consent order can be set aside if there is fraud or other vitiating f......
1 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 December 2013
    ...and orders Amendment of consent judgment 8.37 The amendment of a consent judgment arose for consideration in Ng Kiam Bee v Ng Bee Eng[2013] 2 SLR 442. The parties had settled their dispute concerning the ownership of property and the terms were recorded in a consent judgment. The consent ju......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT