Terrestrial Pte Ltd v Allgo Marine Pte Ltd: Dispute over Breach of Contract and Service of Writ

In Terrestrial Pte Ltd v Allgo Marine Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed two Registrar's Appeals concerning the service of a writ of summons. Terrestrial Pte Ltd sued Allgo Marine Pte Ltd and Koh Lin Yee for breach of contract related to the sale of barges and a loan agreement. The court allowed both appeals, setting aside the default judgment against the defendants but ordered the defendants to appoint solicitors to accept service of the Writ.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals allowed; Default Judgment set aside with conditions.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Case involving Terrestrial Pte Ltd and Allgo Marine Pte Ltd concerning breach of contract and validity of writ service. The court allowed the appeals.

1.7 Decision Date

5 March 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Koh Lin Yee	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	Govindarajalu Asokan of RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP
Allgo Marine Pte Ltd	Defendant, Appellant	Corporation	Appeal allowed	Won	Govindarajalu Asokan of RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP
Terrestrial Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Lim Yee Ming of Kelvin Chia Partnership Amy Tan of Kelvin Chia Partnership

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	J	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Govindarajalu Asokan	RHTLaw Taylor Wessing LLP
Lim Yee Ming	Kelvin Chia Partnership
Amy Tan	Kelvin Chia Partnership

4. Facts

Plaintiff sued defendants for breach of two sale and purchase agreements for flat-top barges.
Plaintiff also sued for advances made for the construction of the barges, totaling $350,000, under a loan agreement.
There was a separate claim against the second defendant for a personal loan of $56,000.
The Writ was served by registered post and by certificate of posting on the first defendant.
The court ordered substituted service of the Writ on the second defendant.
The postal authorities returned letters posted to the Still Road addresses with the remark “Unclaimed”.

5. Formal Citations

Terrestrial Pte Ltd v Allgo Marine Pte Ltd, Suit No 827 of 2011 (Registrar's Appeals Nos 209 and 311 of 2012), [2013] SGHC 57

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2009-01-01	Sale and purchase agreement made between the plaintiff and the first defendant for the sale of a flat-top barge.
2010-01-01	Sale and purchase agreement made between the plaintiff and the first defendant for the sale of a flat-top barge.
2011-01-03	Loan agreement dated between the plaintiff and the first defendant.
2011-11-18	Writ of summons filed by Terrestrial Pte Ltd against Allgo Marine Pte Ltd and Koh Lin Yee.
2011-11-24	Md Azahar Bin Ismail spoke to the second defendant on the telephone.
2011-11-25	Writ was served by registered post and by certificate of posting on the first defendant.
2011-11-28	Ismail contacted the second defendant on his handphone but received no answer.
2011-12-08	Plaintiff obtained an order for substituted service of the Writ on the second defendant.
2011-12-14	Writ was served on the second defendant by posting on the notice board of the Supreme Court and by mailing copies to the second defendant at the Still Road addresses.
2012-01-04	Plaintiff obtained the Default Judgment against the two defendants.
2012-01-06	Plaintiff received an email from the second defendant proposing a settlement which the plaintiff rejected.
2012-02-01	Defendants’ (former) solicitors wrote for the first time to the plaintiff’s solicitors.
2012-01-26	Plaintiff obtained Writs of Seizure and Sale against the second defendant’s properties.
2012-03-20	The Sheriff seized the first property.
2012-04-12	The Sheriff seized the second property.
2012-04-24	The second defendant applied in Summons No 2043 of 2012 for a stay of execution on the Writs of Seizure and Sale.
2012-05-09	An assistant registrar granted a temporary stay on 9 May 2012, conditional upon the defendants delivering to the plaintiff a cashier’s order for $200,000 by 16 May 2012.
2012-05-18	The stay of execution was lifted and the First Stay Application was dismissed with costs fixed at $600.
2012-05-29	The defendants filed the first appeal against the dismissal of the First Stay Application.
2012-06-08	The defendants applied in Summons No 2859 of 2012 to set aside the order of court for substituted service dated 8 December 2011.
2012-06-13	This court heard the first appeal and allowed a temporary stay of execution on the Writs of Seizure and Sale until 10 August 2012 on condition that the defendants furnished security to the plaintiff in the total sum of $200,000.
2012-07-13	The Setting-Aside Application was dismissed by an assistant registrar.
2012-07-20	The defendants applied in Summons No 3683 of 2012 for a further stay of execution on the Writs of Seizure and Sale beyond 10 August 2012 pending the disposal of the second appeal against the dismissal of the Setting-Aside Application.
2012-07-25	The defendants filed the second appeal against the dismissal of the Setting-Aside Application.
2013-03-06	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court did not make a ruling on the breach of contract itself, focusing instead on the procedural issues of service.
- Category: Substantive
Validity of Service
- Outcome: The court found that service by registered post was successful, thus the service of the Writ was not a nullity.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Debt Recovery

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Marine

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that the burden to prove proper service lies on the plaintiff.
T O Supplies (London) Ld v Jerry Creighton Ld	King's Bench	Yes	[1952] 1 KB 42	United Kingdom	Dealt with service of a writ on a limited company under s 437 of the Companies Act 1948 (c 38) (UK).
Central Provident Fund Board v Ho Bock Kee	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1981–1982] SLR(R) 84	Singapore	The dispute between the parties in that case centred on a building contract awarded by the Central Provident Board to the respondent contractor, which the Board subsequently sought to terminate.
Regina v County of London Quarter Sessions Appeals Committee, Ex parte Rossi	English Court of Appeal	No	[1956] 2 WLR 800	United Kingdom	The issue was whether a court clerk had served a notice of hearing on the appellant vis-à-vis a complaint by a woman who claimed that he was the father of her child.
Singh v Atombrook Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1989] 1 WLR 810	United Kingdom	A case not on service of a writ, but rather, on whether a writ should be set aside as the defendant named in the writ was not the correct party to be sued.
AlliedBank (Malaysia) Bhd v Yau Jiok Hua	High Court of Malaysia	No	[1998] 6 MLJ 1	Malaysia	The plaintiff bank granted overdraft facilities to the defendant and subsequently instituted proceedings to recover advances which it had made to the defendant.

13. Applicable Rules

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

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Writ of Summons
Default Judgment
Substituted Service
Registered Post
Certificate of Posting
Stay of Execution
Setting-Aside Application

15.2 Keywords

breach of contract
writ of summons
service
default judgment
appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Service of Process	90
Civil Procedure	80
Contract Law	75
Default Judgment	70
Sale of Goods	60
Real Estate	15
Corporate Law	10

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law
Service of Process