Ow Chor Seng v Coutts Bank (Schweiz) AG

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 28 February 2002
• Date: 28 February 2002
• Docket Number: Suit No 1783 of 1999 (Registrar's
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Ow Chor Seng

Plaintiff

and

Coutts Bank (Schweiz) AG

Defendant

[2002] SGHC 41

Lee Seiu Kin JC

Suit No 1783 of 1999 (Registrar's Appeal No 600195 of 2001)

High Court

Civil Procedure–Judgments and orders–Admissions of fact–Whether liability turned on question of law or fact or both–Plaintiff admitting to drawing down a sum of money–Allegations of defendant's statutory breaches by plaintiff precluding recovery–Whether judgment for defendant would determine issue–Order 27 r 3 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed)–Civil Procedure–Judgments and orders–Admissions of fact–Rationale of rule–Immediate judgment based on clear admissions of fact–No consideration of veracity of pleadings unless clearly untenable–Order 27 r 3 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed)

The defendant (“the bank”) extended banking facilities to the plaintiff (“Ow”). Disputes arose and in suing the bank, Ow admitted by his pleading that he had drawn down a sum of money, but he also alleged that the bank had breached certain statutory regulations.

On the basis of Ow's admission, the bank then applied under O 27 r 3 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) (the “Rules”) for judgment against him for the sum of money. It was dismissed and the bank appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal with costs:

(1) Order 27 r 3 related to admissions of fact, whether in the pleadings or otherwise. However, admissions of fact alone could not determine the matter if liability turned on a question of law, or mixed fact and law. Hence, in an application under this rule, the court would only consider whether such admission was made which would entitle the applicant to judgment: at [16] and [17].

(2) The bank could not rely on O 27 r 3. Although Ow admitted to drawing down the sum in question, he had pleaded that the bank was precluded from recovery in view of the alleged breaches, and Ow would not be liable if he was correct on this issue. In this regard, the veracity of his pleadings could not be considered unless it was clearly untenable, nor would the court examine its likelihood of success, as O 27 r 3 was intended to provide an immediate judgment based on clear admissions of fact: at [17].

Blundell v Rimmer [1971] 1 WLR 123; [1971] 1 All ER 1072 (refd)

Ellis v Allen [1914] 1 Ch D 904 (refd)

Rankine v Garton Sons & Co Ltd [1979] 2 All ER 1185 (refd)

Shunmugam Jayakumar v Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin [1996] 2 SLR (R) 658; [1997] 2 SLR 172 (folld)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) O 27 r 3 (consd)

Harpreet Singh Nehal (Drew & Napier LLC) for the plaintiff/respondent

Lionel Tay (Khattar Wong & Partners) for the defendant/appellant.

Lee Seiu Kin JC

1 This is an appeal against the decision of the senior assistant registrar in SIC 602105/2001 in which he dismissed the application of the defendant (“the bank”) for judgment against the plaintiff (“Ow”) under the bank's counterclaim in the sum of $10,767,707.18 under O 27 r 3 of the Rules of Court. On 8 January 2002, after hearing counsel for the parties, I dismissed the bank's appeal with costs. On 6 February the bank filed a notice of appeal against the whole of my decision and I now give my written grounds of decision.

Statement of claim

2 The following are the salient points pleaded by Ow in his statement of claim. The bank is incorporated in Switzerland and has a branch in Singapore. Ow had been a customer of the bank since 23 April 1997, when he signed a facility agreement with the bank in which he obtained a multi-currency overdraft facility of up to the equivalent of US$10m (“the facility”). At that time Ow had an overdraft account with the Bank of America (“BOA”). The sole purpose of this exercise was to obtain a Singapore dollar loan...