Chen Chun Kang v Zhao Meirong: Enforcement of Default Judgment & False Representation

In Chen Chun Kang v Zhao Meirong, the Singapore High Court addressed an application by Chen Chun Kang to enforce a default judgment against Zhao Meirong, his former mistress. Chen claimed he transferred substantial sums to Zhao based on her false representations. The court adjourned the hearing to allow Zhao, incarcerated in Taiwan, a final opportunity to challenge the default judgment. The primary legal issue revolved around the enforcement of the default judgment and the defendant's ability to defend herself while imprisoned. The court ultimately decided to adjourn the hearing to November 30, 2012, to allow the defendant an opportunity to apply to set aside the default judgment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Hearing of Summons adjourned to allow the Defendant a final opportunity to apply to set aside the Default Judgment.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court considered adjourning the enforcement of a default judgment against Zhao Meirong due to her incarceration in Taiwan, relating to false representation claims.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chen Chun KangPlaintiffIndividualHearing AdjournedNeutral
Zhao MeirongDefendantIndividualHearing AdjournedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh JunxiangShook Lin & Bok LLP
David ChanShook Lin & Bok LLP
Sean SayKeystone Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff is a wealthy retired businessman from Taiwan.
  2. Defendant is a national of the People’s Republic of China who resided in Taiwan.
  3. Plaintiff and Defendant had an intimate relationship.
  4. Plaintiff transferred substantial sums of money to the Defendant.
  5. Plaintiff claimed the transfers were based on Defendant's false representations.
  6. Defendant was incarcerated in Taiwan during the Singapore proceedings.
  7. Plaintiff obtained a Default Judgment against the Defendant in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chen Chun Kang v Zhao Meirong, Suit No 312 of 2008 (Summons No 1000 of 2011), [2011] SGHC 263

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff and Defendant met in Taipei.
Plaintiff discovered Defendant's misrepresentations.
Plaintiff lodged a complaint against Defendant with the Taiwan Criminal Investigation Bureau.
Defendant was arrested in Taiwan.
Defendant was formally indicted for fraud in Taiwan.
Plaintiff initiated a Supplementary Civil Action in Taiwan.
Plaintiff obtained an interim injunction in Singapore.
Memorandum of Service of the Writ of Summons filed.
Plaintiff diagnosed with Alzheimer’s disease and a psychological disorder.
Statement of Claim served on Defendant's agent in Taiwan.
Plaintiff applied for Default Judgment.
Plaintiff obtained Default Judgment.
Garnishee orders granted.
Defendant appointed a solicitor in Singapore.
Garnishee orders granted.
Garnishee orders granted.
Hearing adjourned to ascertain Defendant's release date.
Hearing adjourned based on Defendant's expected release date.
Defendant's application for parole rejected.
Hearing adjourned for further directions.
Defendant's second application for parole rejected.
Amendments to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act came into effect.
Defendant's third application for parole rejected.
Defendant's solicitor discharged himself.
Hearing adjourned to allow Defendant to appoint another solicitor.
Court ordered that the hearing of the Summons be adjourned to 2012-11-30.
Defendant is due to be released.
Hearing of the Summons adjourned to this date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Enforcement of Default Judgment
    • Outcome: The court adjourned the hearing of the summons to allow the defendant an opportunity to apply to set aside the default judgment.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Setting aside default judgment
      • Adjournment of hearing
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 667
      • [1995] 2 MLJ 833
      • [1928] 1 KB 645
      • [2006] 2 SLR(R) 525
  2. Undue Influence
    • Outcome: The court did not make a ruling on this issue, as the hearing was adjourned.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Full and Frank Disclosure
    • Outcome: The court considered whether the Plaintiff made full and frank disclosure when seeking the Default Judgment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994
  4. Competency to Testify
    • Outcome: The court considered the Plaintiff's competency to testify, given his medical history.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 5 MLJ 798

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Delivery of Ontario Bonds
  3. Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

  • False Representation
  • Undue Influence

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG v Go Dante YapCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 667SingaporeCited for the meaning of 'order' in s 29A(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
Insas Bhd v Ayer Molek Rubber Co BhdFederal CourtYes[1995] 2 MLJ 833MalaysiaCited to support the view that a decision to adjourn a hearing can be regarded as an 'order'.
Maxwell v KeunCourt of AppealYes[1928] 1 KB 645EnglandCited to support the view that a decision to adjourn a hearing can be regarded as an 'order'.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu ManHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 525SingaporeCited for the interpretation of 'interlocutory orders' and the test of whether a judgment or order is interlocutory or final.
Bozson v Altrincham Urban District CouncilCourt of AppealYes[1903] 1 KB 547EnglandCited for the test of whether a judgment or order is interlocutory or final depends on whether it finally disposes of the rights of the parties.
Wong Phila Mae v Harold ShawHigh CourtYes[1991] 2 MLJ 147MalaysiaCited for the principle that the court has the inherent jurisdiction to adjourn a hearing in the interests of justice.
MGG Pillai v Tan Sri Dato Vincent Tan Chee Yioun & other appealsHigh CourtYes[1995] 2 MLJ 493MalaysiaCited for the principle that a decision to grant or refuse an adjournment of a hearing may be reviewed where it would cause manifest injustice to one of the parties.
Lee Ah Tee v Ong Tiow Pheng & OthersHigh CourtYes[1984] 1 MLJ 107MalaysiaCited for the principle that manifest injustice may result where a judge fails to consider all necessary matters or exercised his discretion arbitrarily.
Dick v PillerUnknownYes[1943] 1 All ER 627EnglandCited for the principle that manifest injustice may result where a judge fails to consider all necessary matters or exercised his discretion arbitrarily.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and another suitHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 675SingaporeCited for the principle that the court would have to consider whether the party requesting the adjournment would be unable to argue its case effectively otherwise, while having in mind the need for cases to be dealt with in an expedient manner.
Tan Pak v Cham Boon San and other actionsHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 MLJ 271MalaysiaCited for the principle that the court would have to consider whether the party requesting the adjournment would be unable to argue its case effectively otherwise, while having in mind the need for cases to be dealt with in an expedient manner.
Boyle v Ford Motor Co LtdCourt of AppealYes[1992] 2 All ER 228EnglandCited for guidance as to the appropriate balance to be struck when considering an adjournment.
Albon (trading as NA Carriage Co) v Naza Motor Trading Sdn Bhd and another (No 5)UnknownYes[2008] 1 WLR 2380EnglandCited for factors to consider when determining whether an adjournment would be just and fair.
R v General Commissioners of Income Tax for Sevenoaks ex parte ThorneUnknownYes[1989] STC 560EnglandCited for factors to consider when determining whether an adjournment would be just and fair.
Hup San Timber Trading Co Sdn Bhd v Tan Ah LanHigh CourtYes[1979] 1 MLJ 238MalaysiaCited to support the view that the lower court should have granted an adjournment where a party was unable to enter the country.
Public Prosecutor v Chan Wai HengHigh CourtYes[2008] 5 MLJ 798MalaysiaCited for the principle that competency to testify depends on a witness’s ability to understand the questions put to him and to give rational answers to questions at trial.
Kabiraj Tudu v State of AssamUnknownYes1994 Cri LJ 432IndiaCited for the principle that competency to testify depends on a witness’s ability to understand the questions put to him and to give rational answers to questions at trial.
Kee Lik Tian v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[1984] 1 MLJ 306MalaysiaCited to support the view that the judge erred when he refused to permit the defence counsel to test whether a prosecution witness who was found to be mentally retarded had the competency to testify.
The “Vasiliy Golovnin”High CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 994SingaporeCited for the principle that a party may apply for an order to be set aside if the plaintiff did not make full and frank disclosure in his ex parte application.
The King v The General Commissioners of the Purposes of the Income Tax Acts for the District of KensingtonUnknownYes[1917] 1 KB 486EnglandCited for the principle that a party may apply for an order to be set aside if the plaintiff did not make full and frank disclosure in his ex parte application.
Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng HuwahHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 786SingaporeCited for the principle that a party may apply for an order to be set aside if the plaintiff did not make full and frank disclosure in his ex parte application.
Brink’s Mat Ltd v ElcombeUnknownYes[1988] 1 WLR 1350EnglandCited for the principle that the material facts are those which are material to enable the judge to make an informed decision.
Intergraph Corporation v Solid Systems CAD Services LimitedUnknownYes[1993] FSR 617EnglandCited for the principle that the manner of disclosure of material facts to the court is also important.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature ActSingapore
Rules of CourtSingapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 120Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Default Judgment
  • False Representation
  • Undue Influence
  • Adjournment
  • Incarceration
  • Interim Injunction
  • Garnishee Orders
  • Taiwan Criminal Proceedings
  • Citibank Singapore Branch
  • Ontario Bonds

15.2 Keywords

  • default judgment
  • false representation
  • undue influence
  • adjournment
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Fraud and Deceit90
False Representation85
Undue Influence80
Enforcement of Judgments70
Judgments and Orders60
Civil Procedure50
Contract Law30
Estoppel25

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Fraud
  • Banking
  • Enforcement of Judgments