Bakery Mart v Ng Wei Teck: Setting Aside Consent Judgment for Receivership Claim
In Bakery Mart Pte Ltd v Ng Wei Teck Michael and Others, the High Court of Singapore heard an originating summons by Bakery Mart, a company in receivership, seeking to set aside a consent judgment entered into with Culina Pte Ltd. The receivers and managers of Bakery Mart had previously accepted Culina's claim. The court, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, dismissed the application, finding no grounds to set aside the consent judgment. The court ordered costs to Culina and to the receivers and managers.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating summons dismissed with costs to Culina Pte Ltd and to the receivers and managers.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Bakery Mart sought to set aside a consent judgment. The court dismissed the application, finding no grounds to overturn the agreement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bakery Mart Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | Gabriel Peter, Ismail Atan, Calista Peter |
| Ng Wei Teck Michael | Defendant | Individual | Costs Awarded | Won | Ng Yeow Khoon, David Chan |
| Chay Fook Yuen Peter | Defendant | Individual | Costs Awarded | Won | Ng Yeow Khoon, David Chan |
| Culina Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Costs Awarded | Won | Philip Ling |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gabriel Peter | Gabriel Law Corporation |
| Ismail Atan | Gabriel Law Corporation |
| Calista Peter | Gabriel Law Corporation |
| Ng Yeow Khoon | Shook Lin and Bok |
| David Chan | Shook Lin and Bok |
| Philip Ling | Wong Tan and Molly Lim LLC |
4. Facts
- Bakery Mart sought to set aside a consent judgment entered into by its receivers and managers.
- The consent judgment was entered into following the acceptance by the receivers and managers of Culina's claim of $1.7m.
- Bakery Mart alleged wrongful conduct or mistake by the receivers and managers.
- The receivers and managers had discussions with a director of Bakery Mart, who did not challenge Culina's claim.
- The receivers and managers verified documents and obtained legal advice before consenting to the judgment.
- Bakery Mart's defense in another suit was argued to be the same as its defense against Culina.
5. Formal Citations
- Bakery Mart Pte Ltd v Ng Wei Teck Michael and Others, OS 249/2004, [2004] SGHC 226
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Bakery Mart agreed with Sincere Watch to acquire an equal shareholding in Culina. | |
| Bakery Mart executed a deed of debenture with Industrial & Commercial Bank Limited. | |
| Sincere Watch sued Bakery Mart in Suit No 1057 of 2002 to recover the option price, various loans and accrued interest. | |
| Culina sued Bakery Mart in Suit No 1305 of 2002 to recover various loans totalling $1,538,179.19 plus interest. | |
| Bakery Mart entered appearance in Suit No 1305 of 2002. | |
| The decision of the assistant registrar was affirmed on appeal to a judge in chambers. | |
| Bakery Mart appealed against the conditional order. | |
| Default judgment was entered against Bakery Mart. | |
| Bakery Mart was placed under receivership by United Overseas Bank Limited. | |
| M/s Shook Lin & Bok filed Notice of Change of Solicitors in Suit No 1305 of 2002. | |
| A Defence and Counterclaim was filed on behalf of Bakery Mart. | |
| UOB obtained summary judgment in the sum $4.7m and US$108,297.88 against Bakery Mart and two of its directors. | |
| Culina applied for summary judgment. | |
| M/s Shook Lin & Bok attended the hearing of Culina’s application for summary judgment and consented to judgment being entered against Bakery Mart. | |
| The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and granted Bakery Mart unconditional leave to defend Sincere Watch’s action. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Setting Aside Consent Judgment
- Outcome: The court found no grounds to set aside the consent judgment.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1896] 1 Ch 673
- [1929] AC 482
- [1993] 1 SLR 89
- [2000] 3 SLR 244
- [1982] 1 WLR 185
- [1975-1977] SLR 9
- Receivership
- Outcome: The court considered the actions of the receivers and managers in consenting to the judgment.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside of consent judgment
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Setting Aside Consent Judgment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Food and Beverage
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ainsworth v Wilding | N/A | Yes | [1896] 1 Ch 673 | N/A | Cited for the general principle that the court will not interfere to set aside a consent judgment or order after it has been made and perfected. |
| Kinch v Walcott | Privy Council | Yes | [1929] AC 482 | N/A | Cited for the general principle that the court will not interfere to set aside a consent judgment or order after it has been made and perfected. |
| Indian Overseas Bank v Motorcycle Industries (1973) Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR 89 | Singapore | Cited for the general principle that the court will not interfere to set aside a consent judgment or order after it has been made and perfected. |
| Wiltopps (Asia) Ltd v Drew & Napier | N/A | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 244 | Singapore | Cited for the general principle that the court will not interfere to set aside a consent judgment or order after it has been made and perfected. |
| Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Pneupac Ltd | N/A | No | [1982] 1 WLR 185 | N/A | Cited regarding the interpretation of 'consent orders' and whether they evidence a real contract between the parties. |
| Chandless-Chandless v Nicholson | N/A | No | [1942] 2 KB 321 | N/A | Cited in Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Pneupac Ltd regarding the interpretation of 'consent orders'. |
| Chia Sook Lan Maria v Bank of China | Privy Council | No | [1975-1977] SLR 9 | Singapore | Cited regarding the refusal to set aside a consent order where the lawyer had misunderstood the effect of the exchanges of correspondence which led to the consent judgment. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Consent Judgment
- Receivership
- Receivers and Managers
- Originating Summons
- Bad Faith
- Mistake
15.2 Keywords
- consent judgment
- receivership
- Bakery Mart
- Culina
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Insolvency
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Insolvency Law