Ching Chew Weng Paul v Ching Pui Sim: Setting Aside Judgment for Fraud in Trust Asset Recovery

In Ching Chew Weng Paul, deceased, and others v Ching Pui Sim and others, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the 5th to 9th defendants to set aside a prior judgment concerning the recovery of trust assets. The initial judgment favored the plaintiff, ordering the 1st, 2nd, and 4th defendants to transfer assets back to the estate of KK Ching. The 5th to 9th defendants, representing the estate of the 2nd defendant, alleged that the judgment was procured by fraud on the part of the 1st defendant. Steven Chong J dismissed the application, finding insufficient evidence of fraud and noting the defendants' failure to provide adequate reasons for their absence from the original trial and the delay in bringing the application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Applications dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case where the 5th to 9th defendants sought to set aside a judgment, alleging fraud in the plaintiff's recovery of trust assets. Application dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ching Chew Weng Paul, deceasedPlaintiffIndividualApplications dismissed with costsLost
Ching Pui SimDefendantIndividualApplications dismissed with costsWon
Deborah BarkerDefendantIndividualApplications dismissed with costsLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Steven ChongJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Emmanuel Duncan ChuaDrew & Napier LLC
Wendell WongDrew & Napier LLC
Hri KumarDrew & Napier LLC
Kueh Xiu YingDrew & Napier LLC
Melissa LeongGenesis Law Corporation
Sivakumar MurugaiyanGenesis Law Corporation
Deborah BarkerKhattarWong
Ang Keng LingKhattarWong
Noelle SeetKhattarWong

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff sought to recover assets intended by his father, KK Ching.
  2. Initial judgment ordered transfer of assets to KK Ching's estate.
  3. 5th to 9th defendants appealed, alleging fraud by the 1st defendant.
  4. Plaintiff passed away after the initial judgment but before the appeal.
  5. Appeal lapsed due to the 5th to 9th defendants' failure to file required documents.
  6. 5th to 9th defendants applied to set aside the judgment based on fraud.
  7. The 5th to 9th defendants did not participate in the original trial.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ching Chew Weng Paul, deceased, and others v Ching Pui Sim and others, Suit No 594 of 2008 (Summons Nos 4104, 4280 & 4569 of 2010), [2011] SGHC 69

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Action commenced by the plaintiff
2nd defendant's defence filed
2nd defendant passed away
Trial of the action began
Trial of the action concluded
Decision delivered finding assets held on trust
Notice of Appeal filed by the 5th to 9th defendants
Stay application filed by the 5th to 9th defendants
Stay application dismissed
Plaintiff passed away
Appeal lapsed
Executors of plaintiff’s Will added as 2nd and 3rd plaintiffs
Application to set aside the Judgment filed by the 5th to 9th defendants
Application fixed before Chan J
Oral grounds dismissing the application delivered
Full grounds for dismissing the application provided

7. Legal Issues

  1. Setting Aside Judgment
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application to set aside the judgment.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Absence from trial
      • Delay in application
      • Fraud exception
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673
  2. Fraud
    • Outcome: The court found insufficient evidence of fraud to justify setting aside the judgment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Procurement of judgment by fraud
      • Evidence of fraud
      • Deliberate fraud
    • Related Cases:
      • [1956] 1 QB 702

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Setting Aside Judgment

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust
  • Fraud

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation
  • Trusts and Estates

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ching Chew Weng Paul v Ching Pui Sim and othersHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 SLR 76SingaporePrior decision in the same case, providing background and context.
Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue ChewCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 673SingaporeCited for the factors relevant in deciding whether to set aside a judgment after trial under Order 35 rule 2 of the Rules of Court.
Shocked v GoldschmidtEnglish Court of AppealYes[1998] 1 All ER 372England and WalesCited to illustrate that absence from trial due to personal reasons does not necessarily prevent the Court from finding that the absence was deliberate.
Lee Ngiap Pheng Tony v Cheong Ming Kiat (Zhang Minjie) (trading as Autohomme Automobiles)High CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 831SingaporeCited to illustrate that certain personal reasons do not constitute valid reasons to explain a deliberate absence from trial.
Vallipuram Gireesa Venkit Eswaran v Scanply International Wood Product (S) Pte Ltd (Kim Yew Trading Co, third party)High CourtYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 507SingaporeCited for the principle that the applicant's delay in applying to set aside the judgment is a relevant factor to be taken into consideration.
Perwira Habib Bank Malaysia Bhd v Wastecol Manufacturing Sdn Bhd & OrsHigh CourtYes[1988] 3 MLJ 215MalaysiaCited for the principle that failure to explain inordinate delay raises doubts as to the bona fides of the application.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suitCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeCited for the principle that mere inadvertence, in and of itself, is insufficient to constitute a good reason to explain delay in filing appeal documents.
Lazarus Estates Ltd v BeasleyCourt of AppealYes[1956] 1 QB 702England and WalesCited for the principle that a judgment obtained by fraud cannot be allowed to stand.
Bank Canadian National v Krause and KrauseManitoba Court of Queen’s BenchYes(1979) 2 Man R (2d) 221CanadaCited for the principle that the unavailability of any key witness to a re-trial is typically a bar to setting aside a judgment.
Wentworth v Rogers (No. 5)Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) of New South WalesYes(1986) 6 NSWLR 534AustraliaCited for the requirements of establishing fraud in order to set aside a judgment.
Ladd v MarshallN/AYes[1954] 1 WLR 1489N/ACited for the conditions to adduce new evidence in support of the appeal.
Boswell v Coaks (No 2)House of LordsYes(1894) 86 LT 365nUnited KingdomCited for the requirement that there must be a new discovery of something material that would be a reason for setting the judgment aside if it were established by proof.
Patch v WardN/AYes(1867 – 68) LR 3 Ch App 203N/ACited for the principle that fraud must be actual positive fraud, a meditated and intentional contrivance.
Seng Huat Hang Sdn Bhd & Ors v Chee Seng & Co Sdn BhdMalaysian High CourtYes[1987] 1 MLJ 413MalaysiaCited for the principle that evidence of fraud was at most misleading or even erroneous but it fell short of actual fraud.
Chee Pok Choy & Ors v Scotch Leasing Sdn BhdMalaysian Court of AppealYes[2001] 4 MLJ 346MalaysiaCited for the principle that a judgment may be impeached for deliberate fraud practised upon the court, and it is insufficient to show that a litigant merely convinced the court through misleading or erroneous evidence.
Satish Chandra v Satish Kantha RoyN/AYes[1923] AIR 73N/ACited for the principle that mere suspicion or conjecture is insufficient to establish fraud to set aside a judgment.
Price v StoneSupreme Court of VictoriaYes[1964] VR 106AustraliaCited for the principle that there must be something more than false evidence in order to establish actual fraud.
Hip Foong Hong v H Neotia and CompanyPrivy CouncilYes[1918] AC 888United KingdomCited for the principle that a party’s failure to adduce evidence to corroborate the opponent’s case does not amount to fraudulent conduct that taints a judgment.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Bebe bte MohammadCourt of AppealYes[2006] 4 SLR(R) 884SingaporeCited for the principle that dishonesty is the cornerstone of actual fraud.
Tang Yoke Kheng (trading as Niklex Supply Co) v Lek Benedict and othersCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR(R) 263SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court has a higher expectation of proof when it comes to allegations as serious as that of fraud.
SP Chengalvaraya Naidu v JagannathSupreme Court of IndiaYesAIR 1994 SC 853IndiaCited as an example of a case where actual fraud was found to justify setting aside a judgment.
Craddock v BarberCourt of AppealYes[1986] CAEngland and WalesCited for the principle that there is no manifest injustice in not offering a second opportunity to a party who made a conscious and deliberate judgment call.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 35 rule 2 of the Rules of Court
Order 24 rule 6 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Trust assets
  • Fraud
  • Setting aside judgment
  • Deliberate absence
  • Inordinate delay
  • Fresh evidence
  • Share register
  • Financial journal
  • Beneficial interest

15.2 Keywords

  • trust
  • fraud
  • judgment
  • appeal
  • assets
  • estate
  • shares

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Fraud and Deceit95
Estate Administration90
Wills and Probate80
Trust Law75
Civil Procedure50
Evidence Law40
Company Law30
Estoppel30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Civil Procedure
  • Fraudulent Judgments