Wellmix Organics v Lau Yu Man: Appealability of Order Setting Aside Default Judgment
In Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man, the Singapore Court of Appeal considered whether an order setting aside a default judgment unconditionally was appealable under Section 34(1)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. Wellmix Organics had sued Lau Yu Man for breach of director's duties, and a default judgment was entered due to Lau's failure to serve affidavits on time. The judge set aside the default judgment, leading Wellmix to appeal. The Court of Appeal struck out the appeal, holding that the order setting aside the default judgment was not appealable under the SCJA.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal struck out.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal addressed whether an order setting aside a default judgment unconditionally is appealable under s 34(1)(a) of the SCJA, ultimately striking out the appeal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal struck out | Lost | Michael Por, Krishnasamy Siva Sambo |
| Lau Yu Man | Respondent | Individual | Motion granted | Won | Irving Choh, Melvin Lum |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Michael Por | Tan Lee & Partners |
| Krishnasamy Siva Sambo | Tan Lee & Partners |
| Irving Choh | Rajah & Tann |
| Melvin Lum | Rajah & Tann |
4. Facts
- Wellmix Organics sued Lau Yu Man for breach of his duties as a director.
- Lau Yu Man failed to file affidavits of evidence-in-chief by the court-ordered deadline.
- An interlocutory judgment was entered in favor of Wellmix Organics due to Lau Yu Man's failure to serve the affidavits on time.
- Lau Yu Man applied to set aside the interlocutory judgment, but the Assistant Registrar refused.
- The judge initially dismissed Lau Yu Man's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision.
- The judge subsequently allowed further arguments and ordered the interlocutory judgment to be set aside unconditionally.
- Wellmix Organics appealed against the judge's decision to set aside the default judgment.
5. Formal Citations
- Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man, CA 111/2005, NM 122/2005, [2006] SGCA 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Wellmix Organics filed Suit No 642 against Lau Yu Man for breach of director's duties. | |
| Lau Yu Man failed to file affidavits of evidence-in-chief by the deadline. | |
| Wellmix Organics applied for an order requiring Lau Yu Man to file affidavits, failing which the defence would be struck out. | |
| Deadline for filing of AEICs was set. | |
| Lau Yu Man filed affidavits of evidence-in-chief. | |
| Lau Yu Man served affidavits of evidence-in-chief on Wellmix Organics. | |
| Assistant Registrar Yeong Zee Kin refused Lau Yu Man's application to set aside the interlocutory judgment. | |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong JC dismissed Lau Yu Man's appeal against Assistant Registrar Yeong's decision. | |
| Lau Yu Man requested further arguments from the judge. | |
| The judge ordered that the interlocutory judgment be set aside unconditionally. | |
| Wellmix Organics filed an appeal against the judge's decision. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Appealability of Order Setting Aside Default Judgment
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal held that the order setting aside the default judgment was not appealable under s 34(1)(a) of the SCJA.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Interpretation of 'default judgment' under s 34(1)(a) SCJA
- Distinction between setting aside an unless order and setting aside a default judgment
- Interlocutory vs. Final Order
- Outcome: The court held that the decision of 15 July 2005 was interlocutory.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of the 'Bozson' test
- Determination of substantive rights
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Director's Duties
10. Practice Areas
- Appeals
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salaman v Warner | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1891] 1 QB 734 | England | Cited to define the 'application' test for determining whether an order is interlocutory or final. |
| Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1903] 1 KB 547 | England | Cited to define the 'order' test for determining whether an order is interlocutory or final, and adopted as the proper test. |
| Ratnam v Cumarasamy | Court of Appeal of the Federation of Malaya | Yes | [1962] MLJ 330 | Malaysia | Cited as authority for adopting the Bozson test to determine whether an order is interlocutory or final. |
| Tee Than Song Construction Co Ltd v Kwong Kum Sun Glass Merchant | Federal Court | Yes | [1965–1968] SLR 230 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Federal Court in Singapore adopted the Bozson test. |
| Rank Xerox (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Ultra Marketing Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 73 | Singapore | Cited for applying the Bozson test and construing 'rights' to mean substantive rights. |
| Ling Kee Ling v Leow Leng Siong | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 438 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the Bozson test was applied. |
| Aberdeen Asset Management Asia Ltd v Fraser & Neave Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 441 | Singapore | Cited for recognizing the problems with both tests but finding the Bozson test more logical. |
| Strathmore Group Ltd v A M Fraser | Privy Council | Yes | [1992] 2 AC 172 | New Zealand | Discussed in relation to whether an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed is a final judgment. |
| Singapore Press Holdings Ltd v Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 151 | Singapore | Cited for the object of s 34(1)(c) of the SCJA. |
| White v Brunton | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1984] QB 570 | England | Discussed in relation to split trials and the right of appeal. |
| Lim Chi Szu Margaret v Risis Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] SGHC 206 | Singapore | Discussed in relation to the nature of an interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed. |
| S3 Building Services Pte Ltd v Sky Technology Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 241 | Singapore | Cited by the appellant, but the court found it not to be of much assistance. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed) |
| O 25 r 3(2) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Default Judgment
- Interlocutory Order
- Final Order
- Unless Order
- Affidavits of Evidence-in-Chief
- Section 34(1)(a) SCJA
- Section 34(1)(c) SCJA
- Bozson Test
15.2 Keywords
- default judgment
- appealability
- interlocutory order
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- director's duties
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Judgments and Orders
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Judgments and Orders