United Overseas Bank Ltd v Tjong Tjui Njuk

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 25 May 1987
• Neutral Citation: [1987] SGHC 15
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 851 of 1986
• Date: 25 May 1987
• Year: 1987
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Alvin Kheng Ann Tan (Rodyk & Davidson)
• Citation: [1987] SGHC 15
• Defendant Counsel: Mrs Ava Sidhu (Khor Thiam Beng & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Application to set aside registration of foreign judgment,Foreign judgments,Whether debtor properly served with process of foreign court,Whether any submission to jurisdiction of foreign tribunal by debtor,Civil Procedure

Cur Adv Vult

By this summons the judgment debtor (the debtor) seeks an order that the registration of the judgment obtained in the Supreme Court of Hong Kong on 18 December 1985 (the original court) and registered as a judgment in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore pursuant to an order dated 1 September 1986 be set aside.

By a judgment of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong dated 18 December 1985 in Suit 1985 No A 7010 (the said judgment), it was adjudged that the Debtor and three others each do pay the judgment creditor (the creditor) the sum of HK $99,350.58 together with interest. The said judgment is still wholly unsatisfied.

On the application of the creditor it is ordered on 1 September 1986, that the said Judgment be registered as a judgment of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore pursuant to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Commonwealth Judgments Act (Cap 24) (the Act) and that the debtor be at liberty to apply to set aside the said registration.

The debtor`s application to set aside the registration of the said judgment is on the following grounds:

(a) that the debtor was not duly served with the process of the original court and did not appear;

(b) that the debtor was neither carrying on business nor ordinarily resident within the jurisdiction of the original court and did not voluntarily appear or otherwise submit or agree to submit to the jurisdiction of the original court;

(c) that the original court acted without jurisdiction; and

(d) that the judgment was obtained improperly or contrary to natural justice.

The debtor is a shareholder and a director of Fine Grade Industrial Co Ltd, a Hong Kong registered company (the said company). In the annual return of the said company made up to 31 December 1981 and filed with the Registrar of Companies, Hong Kong, the address of the debtor is given as Block G, Ninth Floor, Sheung Hong Garden, Sheung Shing Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong, whose occupation is given as housewife and whose nationality is given as Singapore subject, and who holds 5000 shares of HK $10 each out of 50,000 shares taken up.

Service of the writ of summons was effected by inserting a true copy of the writ of summons enclosed in a sealed envelope duly addressed to the debtor at her address in Hong Kong and inserting the sealed envelope through the letter box for the debtor`s address on 19 November 1985. The creditor says that O 10 r 1(2)(b) of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Hong Kong allows the service on the debtor in that manner.

The debtor says that she has been in Singapore since or on about 3 May 1986 and has gone to Brunei now and then for short periods but on or about 10 August 1986 she left Singapore and went to Brunei to stay. She says she has no knowledge of the proceedings taken against her in Hong Kong and in Singapore and only found out about them sometime on or about 4 December 1986, when she returned to Singapore for a holiday. She says that she is a Singapore citizen and was residing in Singapore at 34 Balmoral Park during the proceedings taken against her in Hong Kong and she was not present in Hong Kong at the date of institution of proceedings in the original court.

The debtor says that she did not receive a true copy of the writ of summons and in fact she had been told by her parents and brother who live at Block G, Ninth Floor, Sheung Hong Garden, Sheung Shing Street, Kowloon, Hong Kong, that no such sealed envelope as alleged had been addressed to her and left in the letter box of the said address on or...