Sunny Daisy Ltd v WBG Network: Amendment of Writ and Setting Aside Judgment

In Sunny Daisy Ltd v WBG Network (Singapore) Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed Sunny Daisy Ltd's application to amend its Writ of Summons to correct its place of incorporation and WBG Network (Singapore) Pte Ltd's application to set aside the judgment previously granted in favor of Sunny Daisy Ltd. The court allowed Sunny Daisy Ltd's application to amend the writ, finding it was an administrative error, and dismissed WBG Network's application to set aside the judgment, determining that it lacked jurisdiction to do so and that WBG Network was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application to amend writ allowed; application to set aside judgment dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Sunny Daisy Ltd sought to amend its writ, while WBG Network sought to set aside the judgment. The court allowed the amendment and dismissed the setting aside application.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
WBG Network (Singapore) Pte LtdDefendant, AppellantCorporationApplication to set aside judgment dismissedLost
Sunny Daisy LtdPlaintiff, RespondentCorporationApplication to amend writ allowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kelvin TanGabriel Law Corporation
L KuppanchettiAlban Tay Mahtani & de Silva LLP
Christopher BuayAlban Tay Mahtani & de Silva LLP

4. Facts

  1. Sunny Daisy Ltd supplied goods to WBG Network from May 2003 to September 2004.
  2. WBG Network accumulated an outstanding debt of US$1,057,164.03.
  3. Sunny Daisy Ltd commenced legal proceedings in Singapore in July 2005 to recover the debt.
  4. The Writ of Summons incorrectly stated Sunny Daisy Ltd's place of incorporation as Taiwan.
  5. Sunny Daisy Ltd is incorporated in the British Virgin Islands.
  6. WBG Network applied to set aside the judgment based on the incorrect place of incorporation.
  7. Sunny Daisy Ltd applied to amend the Writ of Summons to correct the place of incorporation.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sunny Daisy Ltd v WBG Network (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Suit 470/2005, SUM 4966/2007, 5135/2007, [2008] SGHC 112
  2. Sunny Daisy Ltd v WBG Network (Singapore) Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2006, Civil Appeal No. 43 of 2006

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Sunny Daisy Ltd supplied and invoiced WBG Network for goods sold and delivered.
Sunny Daisy Ltd supplied and invoiced WBG Network for goods sold and delivered.
Sunny Daisy Ltd commenced legal proceedings in Singapore to recover the outstanding debt.
High Court granted summary judgment in favour of Sunny Daisy Ltd.
Court of Appeal dismissed WBG Network's appeal.
Counsel for WBG Network requested Sunny Daisy Ltd’s registration documents.
Counsel for Sunny Daisy Ltd forwarded a copy of Sunny Daisy Ltd’s Certificate of Incorporation.
Counsel for WBG Network cited an apparent discrepancy in the Writ of Summons.
Sunny Daisy Ltd filed Summons No. 4966 of 2007, seeking leave to amend their Writ of Summons.
Counterclaim fixed for hearing.
WBG applied to set aside the judgment granted in favour of Sunny Daisy Ltd on 17 March 2006.
Court allowed Sunny Daisy Ltd’s application and dismissed WBG Network’s application.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Amendment of Writ
    • Outcome: The court allowed the amendment, finding it was to correct an administrative error and did not prejudice the defendant.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Administrative error
      • Change of party
  2. Setting Aside Judgment
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application, finding it lacked jurisdiction to set aside a judgment of co-ordinate jurisdiction and that no fraud was proven.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Fraud
      • Lack of jurisdiction
  3. Illegality of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found it was too late to raise the defence of illegality after judgment had been entered and affirmed on appeal.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Health Supplements
  • Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Poh Soon Kiat v Hotel Ramada of Nevada t/a Tropicana Resort & CasinoHigh CourtYes[1999] 4 SLR 391SingaporeCited to support the principle that one court of the High Court cannot set aside the judgment of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
Neo Corp Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Neocorp Innovations Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2006] 2 SLR 717SingaporeCited to support the principle that one court of the High Court cannot set aside the judgment of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
re Barrell EnterprisesCourt of AppealYes[1973] 1 WLR 19England and WalesCited to support the principle that one court of the High Court cannot set aside the judgment of a court of co-ordinate jurisdiction.
Ong Cher Keong v Goh Chin Soon RickyHigh CourtNo[2001] 2 SLR 94SingaporeCited for the circumstances in which an order may be set aside.
Grafton Isaacs v Emery RobertsonPrivy CouncilYes[1985] 1 AC 97United KingdomCited for the principle that an order made by a court of unlimited jurisdiction must be obeyed until set aside by the court.
Scotch Leasing Sdn Bhd(in receivership) v Chee Pok ChoySupreme CourtYes[1997] 2 MLJ 105MalaysiaCited regarding the undesirability of setting aside an order by a judge after it was decided by himself.
Ketterman v Hansel Properties LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 189United KingdomCited for the principles on which the discretion to allow or refuse an application to amend could be exercised.
Tildesley v HarperCourt of AppealYes(1878) 10 Ch.D. 393England and WalesCited for the view that leave to amend should be given unless the party applying was acting mala fide or had caused injury that could not be compensated.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2005] SGCA 58SingaporeCited for the principle that the rules of civil procedure should not be applied to produce unnecessary technicality or substantive injustice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 20, rule 5 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Writ of Summons
  • Place of Incorporation
  • Administrative Error
  • Setting Aside Judgment
  • Court of Co-ordinate Jurisdiction
  • Illegality
  • Amendment

15.2 Keywords

  • amendment
  • writ
  • judgment
  • setting aside
  • jurisdiction
  • incorporation
  • contract
  • illegality

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice75
Administrative Error65
Jurisdiction60
Summary Judgement50
Variation40
Appeal30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Company Law