Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet Miaw

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Judgment Date30 June 1988
Docket NumberSuit No 4108 of 1986 (Summons in Chambers No 6417 of 1987)
Date30 June 1988

[1988] SGHC 51

High Court

L P Thean J

Suit No 4108 of 1986 (Summons in Chambers No 6417 of 1987)

Philip Securities (Pte)
Plaintiff
and
Yong Tet Miaw
Defendant

Anggerek Chua Wee Lee (C P Lee & Co) for the plaintiff

Daniel Williams (Wu & Wong) for the defendant.

Armitage v Parsons [1908] 2 KB 410 (refd)

Muir v Jenks [1913] 2 KB 412 (folld)

Navimprex Centrala Navala v George Moundreas & Co SA (1983) 127 Sol Jo 392 (folld)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, TheO 19r 9, O 20r 11 (consd)

Rules of the Supreme Court1965 (UK)O 20r 11

Civil Procedure–Judgments and orders–Entering of summary judgment for sum greater than that due–Application to set aside judgment and for leave to defend action–Application to amend judgment to reflect correct amount–Whether court had jurisdiction to amend judgment–Whether defendant had any defence on merits–Order 19 r 9 and O 20 r 11 The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970

The plaintiff had claimed a sum of $298,779.25 representing the balance due and owing to the plaintiff in respect of or in connection with sales and purchases of shares transacted by the plaintiff for or on account of the defendant and for commission, service charges and interest. The writ was duly served on the defendant and an appearance entered on his behalf. As no defence was filed, judgment in default of defence was entered for the sum claimed together with interest and costs.

About one year later, the defendant took out an application for an order to set aside the judgment and also for leave to defend the action. He alleged that certain shares in an Australian company (“the shares”) had been deposited with the plaintiff as security pursuant to an agreement made between the parties and referred to an affidavit filed by the plaintiff's representative in bankruptcy proceedings taken out against the defendant admitting to the sale of such shares by the plaintiff. Being alerted to the irregularity in the judgment entered, the plaintiff admitted that it had not given credit for the net amount realised from the sale of the shares and took out an application for an order, inter alia, that the judgment in default of defence be amended by substituting $292,450.81 for $298,779.25, the difference of $6,328.44 being the said amount realised from the sale of the shares. The learned Registrar decided that the summary judgment ought to be amended by reducing the amount to $292,450.81 and made the order accordingly, while dismissing the defendant's application. The defendant appealed against the learned Registrar's decision.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Under O 19 r 9 of The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, the court was entitled to set aside or vary a judgment entered in default of pleadings on terms as the court thought fit. Accordingly, where judgment had been entered in default for an amount in excess of that which was due, the court had jurisdiction to amend the judgment instead of setting it aside. The learned Registrar was plainly right in his decision: at [4].

(2) As the court also had jurisdiction to amend a mistake in the judgment which had arisen out of an accidental slip or omission, the amendment made by the learned Registrar could also be supported and justified under O 20 r 11 of The Rules of the Supreme Court 1970: at [8] and [10].

(3) In the circumstances, the defendant was not entitled to be given leave to defend. Although it was contended by counsel for the defendant that the plaintiff had sold the shares at a price very much below the market value, the defendant had not provided any materials in support of this bare allegation. At any rate, even if this were so, it would not be a defence to the plaintiff's claim for the balance due and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Measurex Corp Bhd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 August 2002
    ...22). Case(s) referred to Harkness v Bell’s Asbestos and Engineering Ltd [1967] 2 QBD 729 (folld) Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet Miaw [1988] SLR 594 Alpine Bulk Transport Co Inc v Saudi Eagle Shipping Co ("The Saudi Eagle") [1986] 2 LLR 221 CA (folld) Legislation referred to Rules of Cou......
  • Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale v Dato Azlan bin Hashim
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 9 September 2002
    ...MLJ 323 (refd) Navimprex Centrala Navala v George Moundreas & Co SA (1983) 127 SJ 392 (folld) Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet Miaw [1988] 1 SLR (R) 566; [1988] SLR 594 (folld) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) O 20 r 11 (consd) Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev ......
  • Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 8 September 2008
    ...of the quantum of the judgment sum due to an inadvertent typographical error; see also Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet Miaw [1988] SLR 594). Where the irregularity is not occasioned by an accidental or a clerical error, O 20 r 11 is not applicable (see, eg, Malayan United Bank Bhd v Moha......
  • Thu Aung Zaw v Ku Swee Boon (trading as Norb Creative Studio)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 27 October 2017
    ...Banking Corp Ltd v Measurex Corp Bhd [2002] 2 SLR(R) 684; [2002] 4 SLR 578 (refd) Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet Miaw [1988] 1 SLR(R) 566; [1988] SLR 594 (refd) Sunny Daisy Ltd v WBG Network (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2008] 4 SLR(R) 769; [2008] 4 SLR 769 (refd) Thu Aung Zaw v Norb Creative St......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2002, December 2002
    • 1 December 2002
    ...into account a prior payment by the defendant.) The court reiterated the priniples declared in Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet Miaw[1988] SLR 594 and Navimprex Centrala Navala v George Moundreas & Co SA(1983) 127 SJ 392. The court also referred to its powers in para 14 of the First Sched......
  • LAST FLIGHT OF THE EAGLE: NEW PRINCIPLES GOVERNING THE SETTING ASIDE OF JUDGMENTS IN DEFAULT
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal Nbr. 2009, December 2009
    • 1 December 2009
    ...of the quantum of the judgment sum due to an inadvertent typographical error; see also Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet Miaw[1988] SLR 594). Where the irregularity is not occasioned by an accidental or a clerical error, O 20 r 11 is not applicable (see, eg, Malayan United Bank Bhd v Moham......

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