Nim Minimaart v Management Corp: Setting Aside Consent Order Due to Judicial Pressure

Nim Minimaart, a firm, sued Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1079 and others in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of a license agreement. The case was heard by Steven Chong JC. The plaintiff claimed specific performance and damages. During the trial, the plaintiff alleged judicial pressure led to a consent order. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the consent order, and ordered a retrial, finding a reasonable appearance that the consent was tainted by judicial pressure.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal to set aside a consent order due to judicial pressure. The High Court allowed the appeal and ordered a retrial.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Nim Minimaart (a firm)Plaintiff, AppellantPartnershipAppeal AllowedWonSambasivam s/o Kunju
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1079Defendant, RespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLostLeo Cheng Suan, Ee-Von Teh
Andrew Lim Boon KhengDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLostLeo Cheng Suan, Ee-Von Teh
Andrew Yip Mun TuckDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLostLeo Cheng Suan, Ee-Von Teh
Steven ChuaDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLostLeo Cheng Suan, Ee-Von Teh
Roland Chew Kwong YenDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLostLeo Cheng Suan, Ee-Von Teh
Lim Chwee Kiat RolandDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLostLeo Cheng Suan, Ee-Von Teh
Goh Chai KuanDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLostLeo Cheng Suan, Ee-Von Teh
Gary Teh Keng HupDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLostLeo Cheng Suan, Ee-Von Teh
Wilfred s/o SreekaranDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLostLeo Cheng Suan, Ee-Von Teh

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Steven ChongJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sambasivam s/o KunjuIndependent Practitioner
Leo Cheng SuanInfinitus Law Corporation
Ee-Von TehInfinitus Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff firm is a mini-supermarket store in a condominium development.
  2. Plaintiff and first defendant entered into a licence agreement on 15 January 2006.
  3. The plaintiff claimed the first defendant refused to extend the licence agreement for a further year.
  4. The defendants claimed the Notice of Termination was served on the plaintiff due to the plaintiff’s failure to pay rent promptly.
  5. The plaintiff alleged the trial judge made remarks that caused him to agree to the Consent Order.
  6. The plaintiff’s income tax returns showed a loss for 2006 and 2007.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Nim Minimaart (a firm) v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1079 and Others, DC Suit 1263/2008, RAS 106/2009, [2009] SGHC 251

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff and first defendant entered into a licence agreement.
Renovation period.
Monthly tenure commencing.
Notice of Termination was served on the plaintiff.
Plaintiff commenced the action against the defendants for breach of the license agreement.
Trial began.
Action was settled on the third day of trial.
Mr Sambasivam complained that he was “pressurised into a settlement”.
Mr Sambasivam received a response from the Subordinate Courts.
Plaintiff filed Summons No 6059 of 2009 to set aside the Consent Order and for a retrial.
Application was heard before the Deputy Registrar and was dismissed.
DJ allowed the application to set aside the Judgment.
Plaintiff’s appeal was filed.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Judicial Interference
    • Outcome: The court found a reasonable appearance that the consent by the plaintiff may have been tainted by judicial pressure.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Appearance of judicial pressure
      • Improper conduct of trial judge
  2. Setting Aside Consent Order
    • Outcome: The court determined that the plaintiff need not commence fresh proceedings to set aside the Consent Order.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Involuntary consent
      • Improper conduct of judge

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Specific Performance
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Mohammed Ali bin Johari v PPCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR 1058SingaporeCited for guidelines on the permissible limits of judicial interference.
In re R (A Minor) (Consent Order: Appeal)English Court of AppealYes[1995] 1 WLR 184EnglandCited for the principle that a retrial should be ordered if consent was tainted by judicial pressure.
Wiltopps (Asia) Ltd v Drew & NapierUnknownYes[2000] 3 SLR 244SingaporeCited for the argument that the proper procedure to set aside the Consent Order is by way of fresh proceedings.
Indian Overseas Bank v Motorcycle Industries (1973) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1993] 1 SLR 89SingaporeCited for the argument that the proper procedure to set aside the Consent Order is by way of fresh proceedings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Consent Order
  • Judicial Pressure
  • Judicial Interference
  • Licence Agreement
  • Loss of Income
  • Retrial

15.2 Keywords

  • consent order
  • judicial interference
  • breach of contract
  • appeal
  • retrial

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Judicial Review

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law