United Commercial Bank v Yap Cheng Hai and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 23 August 1979
• Date: 23 August 1979
• Docket Number: Suit No 2499 of 1978
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

United Commercial Bank

Plaintiff

and

Yap Cheng Hai and others

Defendant

[1979] SGHC 20

T S Sinnathuray J

Suit No 2499 of 1978

High Court

Civil Procedure–Summary judgment–Res judicata–Whether estoppel by record applies to a decision to grant leave to defend in an application for summary judgment

The plaintiff appealed against a decision of a Registrar to grant the defendants leave to defend in an O 14 application for summary judgment on an indemnity or guarantee, on the basis that res judicata applied. The res judicata was said to have arisen because leave had been given to defend in an earlier action by the plaintiff on the same document but for a guarantee only. The plaintiff had discontinued the earlier action and commenced the present one.

Held, referring the matter back to the Registrar:

For res judicata or estoppel by record to arise, there must be a judgment on the issues before the court. An order giving leave to defend is a decision that there should not be judgment for the plaintiff and is not a judgment to which the doctrine of res judicata applied: at [9].

Government of Malaysia v Dato Chong Kok Lim [1973] 2 MLJ 74 (refd)

Henderson v Henderson (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313 (folld)

Wee Bing Po v Dayang Anak Ngipa [1974] 2 MLJ 56 (refd)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1970, TheO 14

Susan Jacob (Drew & Napier) for the plaintiff

P Suppiah (P Suppiah & Co) for the defendants.

T S Sinnathuray J

(delivering oral judgment):

1 In this appeal the Registrar granted leave to defend in an O 14 hearing. It is common ground that leave to defend was granted on a question of law that, on the facts of the case, res judicataapplied. It is therefore necessary to refer to the facts to see whether the plea of res judicata does in fact apply.

2 The plaintiffs, the United Commercial Bank, claim against the defendants on a document which they say is either an indemnity given by the defendants to the plaintiffs or alternatively that the document is a guarantee.

3 The plaintiffs had in an earlier action, in Suit No 462 of 1978, claimed against the defendants on the same document but solely on the ground that the document was a guarantee. In that action only the second defendant had been served with the proceedings. The plaintiffs then took out an O 14 application for summary judgment against him. Leave to defend was granted. The next event in that action was that the plaintiffs discontinued it and brought the present action, in...