Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet Miaw

• Judgment Date: 30 June 1988
• Date: 30 June 1988
• Docket Number: Suit No 4108 of 1986 (Summons in Chambers No 6417 of 1987)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Philip Securities (Pte)

Plaintiff

and

Yong Tet Miaw

Defendant

[1988] SGHC 51

L P Thean J

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

High Court

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 owing as the defendant was at liberty to initiate fresh proceedings for damages for breach of the agreement with regard to the holding of the shares as security and for negligence in the sale of the shares: at [11] and [12].

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...