SAL Leasing (Pte) Ltd v Hendmaylex Pte Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 03 June 1987
• Date: 03 June 1987
• Docket Number: Suit No 7126 of 1984
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

SAL Leasing (Pte) Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Hendmaylex Pte Ltd and others

Defendant

[1987] SGHC 17

L P Thean J

Suit No 7126 of 1984

High Court

Civil Procedure–Stay of proceedings–Stay of execution–Matters that would move court in granting stay–Judgment entered against one defendant while two other defendants given unconditional leave to defend–Order 45 r 11 Rules of the Supreme Court 1970

The plaintiff had leased certain equipment to the first defendant. The second and third defendants had guaranteed the first defendant's obligations under the lease. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendants based on the lease. Judgment in default of appearance (“the judgment”) was entered against the first defendant, but unconditional leave to defend the plaintiff's claim for the balance still due under the lease was subsequently granted to the second and third defendants. The first defendant then applied under O 45 r 11 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 for an order that the execution on the judgment be stayed pending the determination of the plaintiff's claim against the second and third defendants. The assistant registrar dismissed the application. To stave off a winding-up order on the plaintiff's winding-up petition, the first defendant paid the plaintiff a sum representing the balance due and interest thereon under the judgment (“the judgment sum”), and the costs of the winding-up petition. The first defendant then appealed against the assistant registrar's decision.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) The “matters which have occurred since the date of the judgment or order” in O 45 r 11 were matters which would or might have prevented the order being made, or would or might have led to a stay of execution, if they had already occurred at the date of the order: at [8].

(2) If no judgment had been entered against the first defendant, then by reason of the various matters that had occurred since the judgment, in particular, unconditional leave being given to the second and third defendants to defend the claim for the balance sum, no judgment would have been entered against the first defendant for that amount. If a judgment had been entered, then there would have been a stay pending the outcome of the resolution of the dispute between the plaintiff and the second and third defendants. These were matters within the ambit of O 45 r 11: at [9].

(3) The plaintiff was to repay the judgment sum, to be held by the first defendant's solicitors as stakeholders pending the outcome of the trial against the second and third defendants. However, the costs paid for the winding-up petition would not be refunded to the first defendant because they did not form part of the judgment sum: at [10].

London Permanent Benefit Building Society v de Baer [1969] 1 Ch 321; [1968] 1 All ER 372 (refd)

Rules of the Supreme Court1970O 45r 11 (consd);O 46r 10

Rules of the Supreme Court (UK) O 45r 11

Lattif bin Ibrahim (Shook Lin & Bok) for the plaintiff

Kan Ting Chiu (R C H Lim & Co) for the defendants.

Judgment reserved.

L P Thean J

1 This is an appeal against the decision of the assistant registrar in which, on an application by the first defendant under O 45 r 11 of the Rules of Supreme Court 1970, he refused to grant a stay of execution of the judgment entered against the first defendant on 25 October 1984 pending the outcome of the trial of the plaintiffs' claim against the second and third defendants, to whom unconditional leave to defend this action had been granted. The circumstances that led to the first defendant's application are as follows. The plaintiffs commenced...