Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace)
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | Court of Three Judges (Singapore) |
Judge | Chan Sek Keong CJ |
Judgment Date | 08 December 2009 |
Neutral Citation | [2009] SGCA 60 |
Citation | [2009] SGCA 60 |
Defendant Counsel | Foo Maw Shen, Daryl Ong and Ng Hui Min (Rodyk & Davidson LLP) |
Published date | 04 February 2010 |
Date | 08 December 2009 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Chou Sean Yu, Loo Ee Lin and Tan Yee Siong (WongPartnership LLP) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 113 of 2008 (Summonses Nos 5512 of 2008, 1309 of 2009 and 1312 of |
Subject Matter | Limitation of Actions,Statutory Interpretation,Civil Procedure,Conflict of Laws,Contract,Betting, Gaming and Lotteries |
8 December 2009 |
Judgment reserved. |
Chan Sek Keong CJ (delivering the judgment of the court):
Introduction
Background facts
(a) the transfer of the Appellant’s interest in the Property to Surepath was to be set aside;
A total of US$130,119.35 was recovered from the sale of the Appellant’s interest in the Property and paid pro rata to the Respondent and Sheraton, leaving a balance of over US$4m (inclusive of accrued interest) due and owing to the Respondent.
The decision of the AR
8 The AR dismissed the Respondent’s application for summary judgment (vis-à-vis SUM 72/2008) and struck out the Singapore Action (vis-à-vis SUM 189/2008). He held that the Singapore Action, being a common law action to enforce a foreign judgment, was essentially an action based on “an implied contract by the judgment debtor to pay the judgment debt”[note: 1] (citing the High Court’s decision in Westacre Investments Inc v Yugoimport-SDPR
In my view, Order (iii) [ie, the order in the 2001 California Judgment stating that the Appellant was to remain liable for any shortfall between the sale proceeds of the Appellant’s interest in the Property and the sum due to (inter alia) the Respondent under the 1999 California Judgment (see [5] above)] clearly seeks to enforce the judgment debt created by the first judgment [ie, the 1999 California Judgment] (or in fact the [1999] Nevada [J]udgment before that). And that judgment debt accrued way back in 1999. Notwithstanding [the fact] that the [Respondent’s] claim is clothed in terms of the second judgment [ie, the 2001 California Judgment], in substance it is the judgment debt of 1999 that is sought to be enforced. Therefore, in my view, the action to enforce that judgment debt by way of an implied contract is time-barred under [s]ection 6(1)(a) of the [LA].
The decision of the Judge
10 The Respondent appealed via Registrar’s Appeal No 77 of 2008 and Registrar’s Appeal No 78 of 2008 against the AR’s decision in, respectively, SUM 189/2008 and SUM 72/2008. The Judge allowed both appeals and set aside the AR’s decision. He granted summary judgment to the Respondent on the ground that the 2001 California Judgment was “a fresh judgment which imposed an obligation on the [Appellant] to pay the sums specified in that … judgment” (see the GD at [104]). The 2001 California Judgment was, the Judge stated, given by a competent court; the judgment was final and conclusive against the Appellant, and the latter had no defence to the Singapore Action. The Judge also held that an action to enforce a foreign judgment was subject to a limitation period of six years under s 6(1)(a) of the LA (id at [84]), although, in his view, the applicable limitation period should be 12 years under s 6(3) of the LA (id at [82]). Finally, he held that s 5(2) of the CLA did not apply to any action in Singapore on the 2001 California Judgment since this court had decided in Liao Eng Kiat v Burswood Nominees Ltd
The issues on appeal
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Olivine Capital Pte Ltd v Chia Chin Yan
...321 (not folld) Payna Chettiar v Maimoon bte Ismail [1997] 1 SLR (R) 738; [1997] 3 SLR 387 (folld) Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc [2010] 1 SLR 1129 (distd) Rainforest Trading Ltd v State Bank of India Singapore [2012] 2 SLR 713 (refd) Rankine Bernadette Adeline v Chenet Finance Ltd [2011......
-
PMA Credit Opportunities Fund and others v Tantono Tiny (representative of the estate of Lim Susanto, deceased)
...Lim Leong Huat and United States Trading did not survive the 2009 case of Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace) [2010] 1 SLR 1129 (“Poh Soon Kiat”). The judgment in Poh Soon Kiat was delivered on 8 December 2009. At [15] of that judgment, the Court of Appeal endorsed......
-
Global Distressed Alpha Fund I Ltd Partnership v PT Bakrie Investindo
...1 SLR 169 (folld) Mohamed Said bin Ali v Ka Wah Bank [1989] 1 SLR (R) 689; [1989] SLR 667 (refd) Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc [2010] 1 SLR 1129 (folld) Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng Huwah [2000] 1 SLR (R) 786; [2000] 2 SLR 750 (refd) Vasiliy Golovnin, The [2008] 4 SLR (R) 994; ......
-
Poh Huat Heng Corp Pte Ltd and others v Hafizul Islam Kofil Uddin
...“blindly accept” such evidence simply because it is not contradicted (see Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc (trading as Caesars Palace) [2010] 1 SLR 1129 (“Poh Soon Kiat”) at [22]). The court must evaluate the expert’s evidence in the light of the objective facts and by reference to the usu......
-
Conflict of Laws
...SGHC(A) 18 at [30]–[31]. 486 Malaysian Trustees Bhd v Tan Hock Keng [2021] SGHC 162 at [23]. 487 Poh Soon Kiat v Desert Palace Inc [2010] 1 SLR 1129 at [114], per Chan Sek Keong CJ. 488 Malaysian Trustees Bhd v Tan Hock Keng [2021] SGHC 162 at [24]. 489 Malaysian Trustees Bhd v Tan Hock Ken......