Wee Yue Chew v Su Sh-Hsyu: Setting Aside Judgment Due to Defendant's Absence at Trial
In Wee Yue Chew v Su Sh-Hsyu, the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Su Sh-Hsyu to set aside a judgment entered against her after she failed to attend the trial. The court, presided over by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, dismissed the application, finding that Su's explanations for her absence were insufficient and contradictory. The underlying claim involved a dispute over the unpaid balance of shares in Interstellar Intereducational Pte Ltd.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to set aside judgment due to defendant's absence at trial. The court dismissed the application, finding the defendant's explanation for absence insufficient.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wee Yue Chew | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Su Sh-Hsyu | Defendant, Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed with costs | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The defendant, Su, did not attend the trial.
- Su's counsel applied for an adjournment on the morning of the trial, which was resisted by the plaintiff.
- The plaintiff, Wee, had come from Australia for the trial and was ready to proceed.
- Wee called Su's office and was informed she was in the United States until August 2006.
- The court found that no credible explanation was given for Su's absence.
- Su claimed she had an urgent meeting in New York to attend on behalf of Natural Beauty.
- Su was notified of the trial date in June 2006 and deliberately chose to absent herself.
5. Formal Citations
- Wee Yue Chew v Su Sh-Hsyu, Suit 665/2004, SUM 3286/2006, [2006] SGHC 244
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sale of shares in Interstellar Intereducational Pte Ltd. | |
| Su instructed Mr. Foo to reschedule trial dates. | |
| Su received notice from Natural Beauty Bio-Technology Limited for an important meeting. | |
| Shanghai Morning News reported adverse publicity regarding SHNU STMU. | |
| Mr. Foo informed that Su and her two witnesses were not going to be in Singapore for the trial. | |
| Trial commenced; Su did not attend; application for adjournment was dismissed; judgment entered against Su. | |
| Su applied to set aside the judgment of 6 July 2006. | |
| Decision Date | |
| Su's application to set aside the judgment was dismissed. | |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean J issued the grounds of decision. |
7. Legal Issues
- Setting aside judgment
- Outcome: The court held that there was insufficient evidence of an explanation for the defendant’s non-attendance and dismissed the application.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Sufficiency of explanation for absence at trial
- Exercise of court's discretion
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside judgment
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of contract
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shocked v Goldschmidt | English Court of Appeal | No | [1998] 1 All ER 372 | England and Wales | Cited for factors the court will consider in exercising its discretion to set aside a judgment obtained in the absence of a party at trial. |
| Vallipuram Gireesa Venkit Eswaran v Scanply International Wood Product (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that in a setting aside application under O 35 r 2(1), the applicant has to give a credible explanation for their absence at the trial. |
| PJB Capital Sdn Bhd v Dato’ Peh Teck Quee | N/A | No | [2003] MLJU 734 | Malaysia | Cited regarding whether counsel's appearance means the defendant cannot apply to set aside judgment under O 35 r 2(1). |
| Grimshaw v Dunbar | N/A | Yes | [1953] 1 QB 408 | England and Wales | Cited to illustrate that it must be material for the judge to know why it was that the defendant failed to appear on the proper day when the case came into the list and was heard. |
| Hyman v Rowlands | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1957] 1 All ER 321 | England and Wales | Cited as an instance where the English Court of Appeal accepted the explanation that the applicant had misread the date of the hearing. |
| Rayney Wong Keng Leong v The Law Society of Singapore | High Court | No | [2006] SGHC 179 | Singapore | Cited regarding obedience to procedures as part and parcel of justice. |
| Ong Cher Keong v Goh Chin Soon Ricky | N/A | No | [2001] 2 SLR 94 | Singapore | Cited as a case that was of no assistance to the defendant as it was not a case under O 35 r 2(1). |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Setting aside judgment
- Adjournment
- Non-attendance
- Credible explanation
- Discretion of court
- Rules of Court
15.2 Keywords
- setting aside
- judgment
- absence
- trial
- civil procedure
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Judgments and Orders | 90 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Judgments and Orders