Zhao Feng Guo v Tan Hong Soon t/a Intense Engineering Construction

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 06 May 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 106
• Docket Number: Suit No 958 of 2001 (Registrar's
• Date: 06 May 2003
• Published date: 02 October 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Namasivayam Srinivasan (Hoh & Partners)
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 106
• Defendant Counsel: Mahendra S. Segeram (Segeram & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether applicable in tort,Damages,Measure of damages,Judgment obtained in default of appearance,Misrepresentation,Civil Procedure,Whether relevant in consideration of quantum of damages,Whether non-discovery of documents amounting to illegality warrants setting aside of judgment,Whether judgment irregular due to bad service of Writ of Summons,Causation,Setting aside,Whether too remote,Weight to be attached by court,Tort,Maxim of ex turpi causa non oritur,Judgments and orders

1 The defendant was at all material times a company. The plaintiff was employed as an engineer by the defendant and was assigned various duties including those of a supervising engineer in the construction of a porch roof for a motorcar showroom. In the course of duty, the plaintiff was injured in an accident involving a power cutter on 15 January 2001.

2 On 31 July 2001 the plaintiff issued a writ of summons against the defendant. The writ was served on the defendant on 19 September 2001 and interlocutory judgment in default of appearance was entered on behalf of the plaintiff on 2 October 2001. Nothing more was done after the summons-for-direction was heard on 23 November 2001 until about a year later when, on 6 November 2002, a summons-for-further-directions was heard for the assessment of damages.

3 The assessment of damages was fixed for hearing on 4 March 2003. However, the defendant applied to set aside the interlocutory judgment on 28 February 2003, three days before the assessment. The application was heard on 4 March 2003 and dismissed by the Senior Assistant Registrar. The assessment proceeded and is virtually completed save for the possibility of calling a medical expert on behalf of the defendant. In the meantime, the defendant appealed before me against the dismissal of its application to set aside the interlocutory judgment.

4 The defendant’s case was as follows. It allowed judgment to be entered because it did not have sufficient grounds to defend the action initially, but after about a year and many letters to the Ministry and the Immigration Department, it managed to get evidence that the plaintiff was deported six days before he issued the writ. The evidence showed that he (the plaintiff) had misled the immigration authorities in declaring that he had the qualifications of a Bachelor in Economics Management when, in fact, he did not. Mr Segeram also submitted that the plaintiff had represented that he had an engineering degree when he had none. It is not clear what degree the plaintiff was supposed to have represented to the defendant that he possessed.

5 Mr Segeram submitted two grounds for the purposes of this appeal. First, he submitted that the plaintiff’s failure to give discovery of the documents relating to his repatriation amounted to an illegality, and secondly, that the judgment was irregular on the ground that the writ of summons was found on the floor beneath the defendant’s door when the rules required the writ to be pasted on the door.

6 Augmenting his first ground, Mr Segeram argued that the defendant had been diligent in writing to the authorities for the reason of the plaintiff’s repatriation. It was only on 14 February 2003 that the defendant discovered that there were irregularities in the plaintiff’s immigration documents. Mr Segeram’s point was that had the plaintiff been honest, the defendant would not have employed him and the accident would not have occurred. Furthermore, counsel submitted, the defendant would not have made the plaintiff a supervisor. Lastly, he...