Lee Ngiap Pheng Tony v Cheong Ming Kiat: Setting Aside Judgment After Trial
Lee Ngiap Pheng Tony sued Cheong Ming Kiat (trading as Autohomme Automobiles) in the High Court of Singapore, seeking $241,067.28 related to a partnership dispute. The Defendant did not attend the original trial in 2003, and judgment was entered against him. Years later, the Defendant applied to set aside the judgment, which was dismissed by the District Judge. Tay Yong Kwang J dismissed the Defendant's appeal, citing the Defendant's lack of valid reasons for his absence and the long delay in seeking to set aside the judgment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal to set aside a judgment was dismissed due to the defendant's absence at trial and long delay in applying to set aside the judgment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Ngiap Pheng Tony | Plaintiff, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Claire Nazar |
| Cheong Ming Kiat (Zhang Minjie) (trading as Autohomme Automobiles) | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Parwani |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Parwani | Parwani & Company |
| Claire Nazar | Kalpanath & Company |
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff and Defendant entered into a partnership in April 2001.
- The Plaintiff was arrested on a drug-related charge, and his name was removed from the partnership.
- The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant owed him $241,067.28.
- The Defendant did not attend the trial on 30 January 2003.
- The Plaintiff obtained judgment against the Defendant in 2003.
- The Defendant applied to set aside the judgment in 2009.
- The District Judge dismissed the Defendant's application.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Ngiap Pheng Tony v Cheong Ming Kiat (Zhang Minjie) (trading as Autohomme Automobiles), DC Suit No 501 of 2002; RAS51 of 2010, [2010] SGHC 216
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff made an equal partner in the business | |
| Attack on the World Trade Centre in New York affected the business adversely | |
| Plaintiff ceased to be a partner of the business | |
| Plaintiff commenced action against Defendant | |
| Trial commenced; judgment entered against Defendant | |
| Plaintiff took action to execute the 2003 judgment | |
| Defendant filed Summons to set aside the 2003 judgment | |
| Summons heard; dismissed by District Judge | |
| Defendant filed notice of appeal | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Setting Aside Judgment
- Outcome: The court held that the Defendant's reasons for absence from the trial were not valid and the delay in applying to set aside the judgment was too long. The appeal was dismissed.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Delay in application
- Reasons for absence from trial
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting Aside Judgment
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Partnership Dispute
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Automobiles
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue Che | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673 | Singapore | Cited for the principles to be applied when determining whether a judgment should be set aside after a trial in the absence of a party. |
| Shocked v Goldschmidt | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 All ER 372 | N/A | Cited for the relevant factors that the court should take into consideration when determining whether a judgment should be set aside. |
| Grimshaw v Dunbar | N/A | Yes | [1953] 1 QB 408 | N/A | Cited as an example of a case where the defendant was genuinely misled by a court official into thinking that their attendance was unnecessary. |
| Virtual Map (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority and another application | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 558 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that non-contractual interest and costs are not to be taken into account for the purpose of determining whether the threshold of $250,000 for an appeal to the Court of Appeal has been met. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Setting aside judgment
- Default judgment
- Partnership
- Delay
- Absence from trial
15.2 Keywords
- setting aside judgment
- civil procedure
- partnership
- singapore
- high court
16. Subjects
- Civil Litigation
- Setting Aside Judgment
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Partnership Law