TR Networks v Elixir Health: Appeal on Setting Aside Default Judgment for Guarantee & Indemnity Claims
TR Networks Ltd and others sued Elixir Health Holdings Pte Ltd and others in the High Court of Singapore, claiming sums under a guarantee and an indemnity. Tay Yong Kwang J heard an appeal by the plaintiffs against the assistant registrar's decision to set aside a default judgment entered against the fifth defendant, Chiew Chee Boon Steven. The court varied the assistant registrar's order, requiring the fifth defendant to provide security for the claimed amounts, failing which the plaintiffs could enter judgment against him. The appeal was dismissed with costs to the plaintiffs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Assistant registrar’s order varied by adding the condition that the fifth defendant provide security for the sums claimed, either by way of banker’s guarantee or in such other form as may be agreed between the parties, within 21 days and that in default thereof, the plaintiffs be at liberty to enter judgment against him for the said sums.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding setting aside a default judgment. The court considered the regularity of the judgment and the defendant's defense merits.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TR Networks Ltd | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Assistant registrar’s order varied | Partial | |
| TRN Marketing Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Assistant registrar’s order varied | Partial | |
| TR Networks Inc | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Assistant registrar’s order varied | Partial | |
| Elixir Health Holdings Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | |||
| Elixir Health Singapore Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | |||
| Health Manna Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | |||
| Seet Cheng Hwa | Respondent | Individual | |||
| Chiew Chee Boon Steven | Respondent | Individual | Assistant registrar’s order varied | Partial | |
| Yeo Chye Poh | Respondent | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Mun Hooi | Lee Mun Hooi and Co |
| Wong Nan Shee | Lee Mun Hooi and Co |
| Edwin Lee | Rajah and Tann |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs claimed $37,707.17 under a guarantee and $305,570.04 under an indemnity against the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants.
- WLAW LLC filed a Memorandum of Appearance on behalf of the first, second, fourth, and fifth defendants by mistake.
- The plaintiffs' former solicitors stated that the Writ of Summons was served on the fifth defendant on 15 January 2005.
- Judgment in default of defence was entered against the fifth defendant on 26 January 2005.
- The fifth defendant claimed he was not properly served and had not authorized WLAW LLC to act for him.
- The fifth defendant applied to set aside the default judgment, seeking leave to withdraw the Memorandum of Appearance.
- The fifth defendant was the managing director for only one division of the first defendant.
5. Formal Citations
- TR Networks Ltd and Others v Elixir Health Holdings Pte Ltd and Others, Suit 964/2004, RA 52/2005, [2005] SGHC 106
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Indemnity dated for outstanding price of goods sold and delivered to the first defendant. | |
| Guarantee dated for the refund of money paid under a Share Acquisition Agreement. | |
| Plaintiffs' former solicitors sent a letter of demand to the fifth defendant. | |
| First defendant proposed a repayment schedule to the first plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiffs commenced action. | |
| Writ of Summons served on the first, second and third defendants. | |
| Attempted service at the Haig Road address. | |
| WLAW LLC filed a Memorandum of Appearance on behalf of the first, second, fourth and fifth defendants. | |
| Order of Court for Substituted Service dated. | |
| Judgment in default of appearance entered against the third defendant. | |
| WLAW LLC applied to cease acting for the fifth defendant. | |
| Order obtained ex parte that WLAW LLC have ceased to be the solicitors acting for the fifth defendant. | |
| Judgment in default of defence entered against the first and second defendants. | |
| Writ of Summons served on the fifth defendant by posting a copy thereof and the Order of Court for Substituted Service. | |
| Judgment in default of defence was also entered against the fourth defendant. | |
| Copy of documents posted on the notice board of the High Court. | |
| Plaintiffs’ former solicitors stated that the Writ of Summons was served on the fifth defendant on 15 January 2005. | |
| Judgment in default of defence entered against the fifth defendant. | |
| Default judgment served on the fifth defendant. | |
| Notice of Change of Solicitors dated. | |
| Plaintiffs’ present solicitors asked him to contact them. | |
| Writ of Seizure and Sale and a statutory demand under the Bankruptcy Act dated. | |
| Fifth defendant found out about this action. | |
| Fifth defendant learnt about the default judgment against him. | |
| Fifth defendant called WLAW LLC. | |
| WLAW LLC sent him a fax enclosing the order of court dated 13 January 2005. | |
| Meeting held to discuss settlement of the judgment. | |
| Fifth defendant instructed his present solicitors to act for him in this action. | |
| Fifth defendant wrote to the first plaintiff to set out his proposals for settlement of the judgment sums. | |
| Fifth defendant applied to set aside the default judgment. | |
| Assistant registrar gave decision setting aside the judgment entered in default of defence on 26 January 2005. | |
| Fifth defendant applied for an extension of the 21-day period. | |
| Application dismissed with costs fixed at $1,800.00 to the plaintiffs. | |
| Fifth defendant filed an appeal to the Court of Appeal against my decision. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Setting Aside Default Judgment
- Outcome: The court varied the assistant registrar's decision, adding a condition that the fifth defendant provide security for the sums claimed, failing which the plaintiffs could enter judgment against him.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Irregularity of judgment
- Meritorious defence
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 1 SLR 484
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Setting Aside Default Judgment
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Guarantee
- Breach of Indemnity
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Abdul Gaffer v Chua Kwang Yong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR 484 | Singapore | Cited for the principles upon which the court should exercise its discretion under Order 13 Rule 8 to set aside a default judgment. |
| Rush & Tompkins v General London Council | N/A | Yes | [1989] 1 AC 1280 | N/A | Cited to support the argument that correspondence referred to by the plaintiffs should not be relied upon as admissions by the first defendant as the letters were written on a “without prejudice” basis and were part of negotiations between the first plaintiff and the first defendant. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 10 r 1(3) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 19 r 9 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2000 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Default Judgment
- Guarantee
- Indemnity
- Substituted Service
- Memorandum of Appearance
- Security for Sums Claimed
15.2 Keywords
- default judgment
- guarantee
- indemnity
- civil procedure
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Default Judgement | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Guarantee | 50 |
| Share Acquisition Agreement | 40 |
| Misrepresentation | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Default Judgment