Nanyang Law LLC v Alphomega Research Group Ltd: Setting Aside Default Judgment Based on Prima Facie Defence

Nanyang Law LLC sued Alphomega Research Group Ltd to recover outstanding payments. Alphomega did not enter an appearance, and a default judgment was entered against them. Alphomega applied to set aside the default judgment, which was dismissed by the assistant registrar. On appeal, the High Court allowed Alphomega's appeal, finding that Alphomega had a prima facie defence of set-off against Nanyang's claim.

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 default judgment. The court allowed the appeal, finding Alphomega had a prima facie defence of set-off against Nanyang's claim.

1.7 Decision Date

29 April 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Nanyang Law LLC	Plaintiff, Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Ng Hui Min of Rodyk & Davidson LLP Philip Jeyaretnam of Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Alphomega Research Group Ltd	Defendant, Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Adrian Tan of Drew & Napier LLC Robert Raj Joseph of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Andrew Ang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ng Hui Min	Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Philip Jeyaretnam	Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Adrian Tan	Drew & Napier LLC
Robert Raj Joseph	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

Nanyang Law LLC represented Alphomega in two suits.
Alphomega terminated Nanyang's services midway through the trial.
Nanyang sought payment for work done up to the termination.
Registrar's certificates were issued for sums totalling $332,229.40 payable by Alphomega to Nanyang.
Nanyang commenced an action against Alphomega to recover the outstanding amount.
Alphomega did not enter an appearance, and a default judgment was entered against them.
Alphomega applied to set aside the default judgment.

5. Formal Citations

Nanyang Law LLC v Alphomega Research Group Ltd, Suit No 540 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 67 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 133

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-01-01	Suit No 49 of 2008 filed
2008-01-01	Suit No 856 of 2008 filed
2008-01-01	Suit No 855 of 2008 filed
2009-02-09	Alphomega terminated the services of Nanyang Law LLC
2009-06-23	Writ of summons filed
2009-06-24	Writ of summons served on Alphomega
2009-07-03	Default judgment granted in favour of Nanyang Law LLC
2009-11-26	Alphomega filed an application to set aside the default judgment
2010-04-30	Appeal allowed

7. Legal Issues

Setting Aside Default Judgment
- Outcome: The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the default judgment because Alphomega had a prima facie defence of set-off.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Regularly Obtained Judgment
  - Prima Facie Defence
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 4 SLR(R) 907
  - [2010] SGHC 45
Defence of Set-Off
- Outcome: The court found that Alphomega had a prima facie defence of set-off based on money had and received by Nanyang.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1991] 2 SLR 901
  - [2009] 3 SLR(R) 840
  - [1992] 1 WLR 270
  - [1994] 1 WLR 1634
  - [1998] 3 SLR(R) 888
  - [1995] 2 SLR(R) 643
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 856
Service of Writ
- Outcome: The court held that service of the writ at Alphomega's principal place of business was good service.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1989] 1 WLR 810
  - (1909) 53 SJ 716
  - (1888) 36 WR 918
  - [1902] 1 KB 91
  - [1963] VR 390

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Recovery of Debt

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Alphomega Research Group Ltd v Nanyang Law LLC	High Court	Yes	[2010] SGHC 45	Singapore	Refers to the assistant registrar's judgment being appealed against.
Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 907	Singapore	Cited for the principles governing the setting aside of default judgments.
Singh v Atombrook	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1989] 1 WLR 810	England	Suggests that 'may' as used in s 725(1) of the Companies Act 1985 (UK) should not be read as 'must'.
Vignes v Stephen Smith & Co	N/A	Yes	(1909) 53 SJ 716	N/A	States that the only way a writ can be served on a company is by leaving it at or sending it by post to the registered office.
Wood v Anderson Foundry Co	N/A	Yes	(1888) 36 WR 918	N/A	States that service had to be effected in the manner provided by s 62 of the UK Companies Act 1862.
Pearks, Gunston & Tee Limited v Richardson	N/A	Yes	[1902] 1 KB 91	N/A	States that service had to be effected in the manner provided by s 62 of the UK Companies Act 1862.
Peters v Oscar Mayer Pty Ltd	Supreme Court of Victoria	Yes	[1963] VR 390	Australia	States that s 252 of the Victorian Companies Act 1958 does not provide an exclusive mode of effecting service on a company.
Hua Khian Ceramics Tiles Supplies Pte Ltd v Torie Construction Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR 901	Singapore	Cited for the three forms of set-off: legal set-off, abatement, and equitable set-off.
Tan Choon Yong v Goh Jon Keat	N/A	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 840	Singapore	Moneys had been found, as a matter of fact, to have been inappropriately paid out of its funds to Nanyang for services Nanyang rendered to Alphomega’s directors in their personal capacities.
Axel Johnson Petroleum AB v MG Mineral Group AG	N/A	Yes	[1992] 1 WLR 270	N/A	It is irrelevant that a defendant’s claim against the plaintiff is unrelated to the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, so long as the defendant’s claim is for a liquidated sum
Aectra Refining and Manufacturing Inc v Exmar NV (The New Vanguard and The Pacifica)	N/A	Yes	[1994] 1 WLR 1634	N/A	It is irrelevant that a defendant’s claim against the plaintiff is unrelated to the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, so long as the defendant’s claim is for a liquidated sum
OCWS Logistics Pte Ltd v Soon Meng Construction Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1998] 3 SLR(R) 888	Singapore	It is irrelevant that a defendant’s claim against the plaintiff is unrelated to the plaintiff’s claim against the defendant, so long as the defendant’s claim is for a liquidated sum
Pacific Rim Investments Pte Ltd v Lam Seng Tiong	N/A	Yes	[1995] 2 SLR(R) 643	Singapore	In my view, there was prima facie a triable issue as to whether Alphomega’s claim (based once again on money had and received) is so closely connected with Nanyang’s claim that it would be manifestly unjust to allow Nanyang to enforce payment without taking into account Alphomega’s claim
Abdul Salam Asanaru Pillai v Nomanbhoy & Sons Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 856	Singapore	In my view, there was prima facie a triable issue as to whether Alphomega’s claim (based once again on money had and received) is so closely connected with Nanyang’s claim that it would be manifestly unjust to allow Nanyang to enforce payment without taking into account Alphomega’s claim
Hawley & Hazel Chemical Co (S) Pte Ltd v Szu Ming Trading Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2008] SGHC 13	Singapore	These were adopted by Lai Siu Chiu J in Hawley & Hazel Chemical Co (S) Pte Ltd v Szu Ming Trading Pte Ltd [2008] SGHC 13 at [33].
Shook Lin & Bok v Yeo Kian Teck	N/A	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 944	Singapore	pursuant to O 59 r 33 of the Rules of Court, the registrar’s certificates, unless set aside on review, ought to be taken as conclusive both as to Alphomega’s liability towards Nanyang as well as to the quantum of that liability
Commercial Bank of Kuwait SAK v Nair (Chase Manhattan Bank NA, garnishee)	N/A	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR(R) 281	Singapore	pursuant to O 59 r 33 of the Rules of Court, the registrar’s certificates, unless set aside on review, ought to be taken as conclusive both as to Alphomega’s liability towards Nanyang as well as to the quantum of that liability

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 13 r 8	Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) s 387	Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 48A	Singapore
Rules of Court O 18 r 17	Singapore
Rules of Court O 59 r 7	Singapore
Rules of Court O 59 r 33	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Default Judgment
Setting Aside
Prima Facie Defence
Set-Off
Service of Writ
Registrar's Certificates
Money Had and Received

15.2 Keywords

default judgment
setting aside
prima facie defence
set-off
service of writ
Singapore
civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Setting aside default judgment	80
Prima Facie Defence	75
Civil Practice	70
Service of Writ	65
Contract Law	60
Money had and received	55
Summary Judgement	50
Estoppel	40
Costs	30
Property Law	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Debt Recovery
Default Judgment
Setting Aside
Service of Process