Pacific Assets v Chen Lip Keong: Validity of Service of Singapore Writ in Malaysia

In Pacific Assets Management Ltd and Others v Chen Lip Keong, the High Court of Singapore addressed the validity of serving a Singapore writ on the defendant in Malaysia for breach of a convertible loan agreement. The plaintiffs, Pacific Assets Management Ltd, Double Assets Investments Ltd, Avia Growth Opportunities Ltd, Lee Heng Ghee Henry, Kua Phek Long, and Huang Yu Zhu Wendy, sued Chen Lip Keong for failing to redeem conversion shares. The court, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, dismissed the defendant's appeal, holding that an ad hoc agreement existed between the parties regarding the acceptance of service, thereby validating the service of the writ in Malaysia.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding the validity of serving a Singapore writ on a defendant in Malaysia. The court found the service valid based on an ad hoc agreement.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Pacific Assets Management LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Double Assets Investments LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Avia Growth Opportunities LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Lee Heng Ghee HenryPlaintiffIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Kua Phek LongPlaintiffIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Huang Yu Zhu WendyPlaintiffIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Chen Lip KeongDefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mervyn FooLee and Lee
Michael LaiHaq and Selvam

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs and defendant entered into a Convertible Loan Agreement on 24 April 2003.
  2. Plaintiffs sued the defendant for breach of the Convertible Loan Agreement.
  3. Plaintiffs obtained permission to serve the Writ of Summons on the defendant in Malaysia.
  4. Defendant appointed Malaysian solicitors to accept service on his behalf.
  5. Service was effected by a court clerk of a Malaysian law firm at the office of the defendant's solicitors.
  6. Defendant applied to set aside service, arguing it was not in accordance with Malaysian law.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Pacific Assets Management Ltd and Others v Chen Lip Keong, Suit 295/2005, RA 207/2005, [2005] SGHC 228

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Convertible Loan Agreement entered into
Writ of Summons dated
Plaintiffs obtained permission to serve the Writ in Malaysia
Lee & Lee enquired about appointing Malaysian solicitors
Haq & Selvam confirmed appointment of Malaysian solicitors
Shaikh David Raj confirmed authority to accept service
Service effected at Shaikh David Raj's office
Mr. David returned the documents served on his firm
Pre-Trial Conference fixed
Defendant obtained ex parte order in Malaysia
Defendant's application to set aside service filed
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Service
    • Outcome: The court held that the service was valid due to an ad hoc agreement between the parties.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1992] 2 AC 105
      • [2000] 2 SLR 717

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Kenneth Allison Ltd v A E Limehouse & CoN/AYes[1992] 2 AC 105N/ACited as authority for the proposition that service in accordance with an agreement reached between the parties is good service.
Fortune Hong Kong Trading Ltd v Cosco Feoso (Singapore) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 2 SLR 717SingaporeCited to support the view that a Singapore writ is a notification and not a judicial order.
Hong Kong Housing Authority v Hsin Yieh Architects & Associates LtdN/ANo[2005] 1 HKLRD 801Hong KongCited to support the point that matters relating to the service of originating process are procedural.
Dynacast (S) Pte Ltd v Lim Meng SiangN/AYes[1989] SLR 840SingaporeCited regarding the importance of complying with Order 41 r 5(2) of the Rules of Court.
Ngan Chin Wen v Panin International Credit (S) Pte LtdMalaysian Court of AppealNo[2003] 3 MLJ 279MalaysiaCited by the defendant to support the argument that service of a foreign writ through a private agent is invalid under Malaysian law.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Wong Hai OngN/ANo[1999] 1 MLJ 474MalaysiaCited to support the argument that service of foreign process in Malaysia must be through official channels.
Sunkyong International Inc v Malaysian Rubber Development Corporation BhdMalaysian Supreme CourtNo[1992] 2 MLJ 146MalaysiaCited regarding service on an agent in a foreign country.
Malayan Banking Berhad v Ng Man HengN/AYes[2005] 1 MLJ 470MalaysiaCited to support the argument that service of foreign process through a private agent on a defendant in Malaysia is valid service.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 11 r 3(8)(a), O 11 r 4(2)(c) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)
O 10 r 1 read with O 62 r 1(3) of the Malaysian Rules of the High Court, 1980
O 12 rr 7(1)(a) and 7(1)(b) of the SRC
O 41 r 5(2) of the SRC
O 65 of the RHC
O 11 r 6(2)(b) of the RHC
O 65 r 2 of the SRC

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Convertible Loan Agreement
  • Service of Process
  • Ad Hoc Agreement
  • Malaysian Law
  • Singapore Law
  • Rules of Court
  • Writ of Summons

15.2 Keywords

  • service
  • writ
  • Malaysia
  • Singapore
  • agreement
  • jurisdiction

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Service of Process80
Civil Practice75
Contract Law60
Conflict of Laws40
International Arbitration Law30
Asset Recovery20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Jurisdiction
  • Service of Process