Ong & Co Pte Ltd v YL Chow Carl

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChan Sek Keong JC
Judgment Date28 May 1987
Neutral Citation[1987] SGHC 16
Docket NumberSuit No 3786 of 1986
Date28 May 1987
Published date19 September 2003
Year1987
Plaintiff CounselYap Shao Sin (Advani Hoo Morris & Kumar)
Citation[1987] SGHC 16
Defendant CounselGoh Kok Leong (Ang & Partners)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterService,'May',Words and Phrases,Non-compliance with Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,O 11 rr 5 & 6 Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,Effect,Civil Procedure,Service of writ out of jurisdiction using process server

Cur Adv Vult

On 20 June 1986, the plaintiffs obtained leave to issue a writ of summons against the defendant and to serve notice of the said writ on him at an address in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. The notice of the writ was served on the defendant personally on 30 July 1986, by a process server employed by a firm of solicitors practising in Kuala Lumpur. According to an affidavit filed by an advocate and solicitor practising in Kuala Lumpur, this method of service was permitted by the rules of the procedure applicable in Malaysia.

On 2 September 1986, the defendant applied to set aside the service of the notice of the writ for non-compliance with O 11 r 5 and/or O 11 r 6 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 (the 1970 Rules).
On 30 January 1987, the senior assistant registrar made an order setting aside the said service. The plaintiff has now appealed against this order.

The plaintiffs` contention is that O 11 r 5(1) and (2) of the 1970 Rules permit them to effect service in the manner they have done which was in accordance with the law of Malaysia.
The defendant`s contention is that service out of the jurisdiction must be effected under O 11 r 5(8), r 6(2) or O 62 r 5 and under no other rules.

The relevant rules read as follows:

O 11 r 5(1)

Subject to the following provisions of this Rule, O 10 r 1 and O 62 r 5 shall apply in relation to the service of a notice of a writ notwithstanding that the notice is to be served out of the jurisdiction.

O 11 r 5(2)

Nothing in this Rule or in any order or direction of the Court made by virtue of it shall authorize or require the doing of anything in a country in which service is to be effected which is contrary to the law of that country.

O 11 r 5(8)

Where the defendant is in Malaysia or Brunei, the notice of a writ may be sent by post or otherwise by the Registrar to the Magistrate, Registrar, or other appropriate officer of any Court exercising civil jurisdiction in the area in which the person to be served is said to be or to be carrying on business for service on the defendant, and if it is returned with an indorsement of service and with an affidavit of such service, it shall be deemed to have been duly served.

O 11 r 6(2)

Where in accordance with these Rules notice of a writ is to be served on a defendant in any country with respect to which there does not subsist a Civil Procedure Convention providing for service in that country of
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Josias Van Zyl and others v Kingdom of Lesotho
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 May 2017
    ...the same time that O 11 underwent substantial amendments in the wake of the controversial decision of Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Chow Y L Carl [1987] SLR(R) 281 (“Ong & Co”) (see Humpuss at [37]–[39]). While the other amendments to O 11 liberalised the service of process out of jurisdiction (see Hu......
  • Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 29 May 2015
    ...Chong J: Introduction Almost 30 years ago, Chan Sek Keong JC (as he then was), delivered a decision in Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Chow YL Carl [1987] SLR(R) 281 (“Ong & Co”) in which he held that “the service of the notice of the writ by means of a court process server employed by a solicitors’ fir......
  • Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 29 May 2015
    ...Chong J: Introduction Almost 30 years ago, Chan Sek Keong JC (as he then was), delivered a decision in Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Chow YL Carl [1987] SLR(R) 281 (“Ong & Co”) in which he held that “the service of the notice of the writ by means of a court process server employed by a solicitors’ fir......
  • ITC Global Holdings Pte Ltd (In liquidation) v ITC Ltd and others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 June 2011
    ...as a nullity, and not a mere irregularity. The AR’s view is supported by the High Court decision of Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Chow Y L Carl [1987] SLR(R) 281 (“Ong & Co”). In that case, the plaintiff obtained leave to issue a writ against the defendant and to serve notice of the writ on him at an ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • CURING NON-COMPLIANCE WITH FOREIGN LAWS IN THE CONTEXT OF SERVICE OUT OF JURISDICTION
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...Procedure (Singapore: Academy Publishing, 2013) at para 5.034. 37ITC Global Holdings Pte Ltd v ITC Ltd[2011] SGHC 150 at [42]–[50]. 38[1987] SLR(R) 281. 39Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Chow Y L Carl[1987] SLR(R) 281 at [9]. 40 See generally Jeffrey Pinsler, Developments in the Course of the 20th Centu......
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...out of jurisdiction under O 11 of the Rules of Court and departed from a previous High Court decision in Ong & Co PteLtd v Chow Y L Carl[1987] SLR(R) 281 (‘Ong & Co’). In this case, the plaintiff sought to commence proceedings against two defendants which were both incorporated in Indonesia......

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