BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam: Appeal Deemed Withdrawn for Non-Compliance with Rules of Court
In BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam and Ruth Agam, the Court of Appeal of Singapore addressed an application by BNP Paribas SA for a declaration that an appeal by Jacob Agam and Ruth Agam was deemed withdrawn due to non-compliance with Order 57 Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Court. The court allowed the application, deeming the appeal withdrawn, and addressed issues concerning service of documents and the degree of indulgence shown to litigants in person. The court also ordered the Agams to pay the costs of the application to the Bank on an indemnity basis.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application allowed and the Appeal is deemed to have been withdrawn pursuant to Order 57 Rule 9(4) of the Rules of Court.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal deemed withdrawn due to appellants' failure to comply with procedural rules. The court addressed service of documents and indulgence for litigants in person.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNP Paribas SA | Applicant, Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Allowed | Won | |
| Jacob Agam | Respondents, Appellants, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Deemed Withdrawn | Lost | |
| Ruth Agam | Respondents, Appellants, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Deemed Withdrawn | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Dyson Heydon | International Judge | No |
| David Edmond Neuberger | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Agams were clients of BNP Paribas Wealth Management (BNPWM).
- BNPWM advanced approximately €61.7m to companies owned by the Agams.
- The Loans were secured by personal guarantees executed by the Agams.
- BNPWM commenced a Suit against the Agams in the Singapore High Court seeking the recovery of around €30m.
- The action was transferred to the SICC in April 2016.
- The Agams filed an application to stay the Suit pending the determination of proceedings in France, which was dismissed.
- The Bank applied to be substituted as plaintiff in the Suit, which was allowed.
5. Formal Citations
- BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam and another, Civil Appeal No 224 of 2017 (Summons No 64 of 2018), [2018] SGCA(I) 07
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| BNP Paribas Wealth Management advanced Loans to companies owned by the Agams. | |
| BNP Paribas Wealth Management commenced Suit against the Agams in the Singapore High Court. | |
| The action was transferred to the Singapore International Commercial Court. | |
| The Agams filed an application to stay the Suit pending the determination of proceedings in France. | |
| The application to stay the Suit was dismissed. | |
| The Bank applied to be substituted as plaintiff in the Suit. | |
| A case management conference was conducted and the trial was fixed. | |
| The Agams filed an application to stay the Suit pending the determination of proceedings in Israel. | |
| Hin Tat Augustine & Partners applied to be discharged as solicitors for the Agams. | |
| Steven Chong JA dismissed the stay application, and granted the discharge application. | |
| Trial of the Suit proceeded before the SICC. | |
| Written judgment of the court was delivered in favour of the Bank. | |
| The Agams filed a declaration asserting that the case has no substantial connection with Singapore. | |
| The legal registry of the Supreme Court of Singapore wrote a letter to the Agams stating that it was willing to assist them in the recording of the Notice of Appeal. | |
| The Registry confirmed that it had recorded the Notice of Appeal against the Judgment in the court’s electronic filing system. | |
| The Bank filed Summons No 5 of 2018 in the Suit for a declaration that the action was not or was no longer an offshore case. | |
| The Registry sent a notice to the Agams stating that the Record of Proceedings was available for collection. | |
| Mr Agam sent the Registry an e-mail annexing a draft Summons requesting an extension of time to file the Appeal Documents. | |
| Vivian Ramsey IJ heard the Declaration Application and allowed it. | |
| Mr Agam sent an e-mail to the Registry attaching a document entitled “the Appellant’s Case” which he requested to be filed. | |
| The Registry sent an e-mail to Mr Agam and a letter by registered post to Ms Agam, conveying the Court of Appeal's directions regarding a final extension of time. | |
| Mr Lawrence Kang attended at the counter of the Registry to file certain documents on behalf of the Agams. | |
| The Registry facilitated the Agams’ filing of the Appellant’s Case through Mr Kang. | |
| The Bank wrote to the Registry objecting to the acceptance and the backdating of the filing of the Appellant’s Case. | |
| The Registry conveyed the directions of the Court to the Bank and the Agams regarding the Application. | |
| The Bank filed the Application and the supporting affidavit. | |
| Mr Agam e-mailed the Registry stating that the Bank had not yet served the Application Documents on him or on Ms Agam. | |
| Mr Agam confirmed by e-mail to the Registry that he had been duly served with the Application Documents, but stated that Ms Agam had not been served. | |
| The Registry conveyed the Court's direction that the Bank was to file an Affidavit of Service. | |
| Counsel for the Bank duly filed an Affidavit of Service. | |
| Mr Agam e-mailed the Registry alleging prejudice, partiality, and unconstitutionality. | |
| Mr Agam sent an e-mail to the Registry requesting that the e-mail be “regarded as a submission of [their] pleadings” in the hearing. | |
| The parties attended before the Court of Appeal for the hearing of the Application. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Deemed Withdrawal of Appeal
- Outcome: The Court held that the appeal was deemed to have been withdrawn due to the Appellants' non-compliance with Order 57 Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-compliance with Order 57 Rule 9(1) of the Rules of Court
- Failure to file Record of Appeal
- Failure to file Core Bundle
- Late filing of Appellant’s Case
- Service of Documents
- Outcome: The Court held that the Application Documents had been properly served on both of the Agams.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Proper address for service
- Presumption of service by post
- Actual notice of documents
- Indulgence for Litigants in Person
- Outcome: The Court held that the Agams should not be treated differently simply because they are litigants in person.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Standard of compliance with procedural rules
- Access to justice for unrepresented parties
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the appeal be deemed to have been withdrawn
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Recovery of unpaid sums pursuant to Guarantees
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNP Paribas Wealth Management v Jacob Agam and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] 3 SLR 27 | Singapore | Cited for the dismissal of the Agams' application to stay the Suit pending the determination of proceedings in France. |
| BNP Paribas Wealth Management v Jacob Agam and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2017] 4 SLR 14 | Singapore | Cited for the Bank's application to be substituted as plaintiff in the Suit being allowed at first instance. |
| Jacob Agam and another v BNP Paribas SA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the upholding on appeal of the decision to allow the Bank to be substituted as plaintiff in the Suit. |
| BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam and another | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC(I) 10 | Singapore | Cited as the Judgment under appeal, where the SICC ruled in favor of the Bank, holding the Agams liable for approximately €32.2m. |
| BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam and another | Singapore International Commercial Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 57 | Singapore | Cited for the decision on the Declaration Application, where it was held that the Declaration was not a valid offshore case declaration. |
| Barton v Wright Hassall LLP | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2018] 1 WLR 1119 | United Kingdom | Cited for the approach of the UK courts regarding the standard of compliance with procedural rules expected of litigants in person. |
| Werner Samuel Vuillemin v Overseas-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd and another matter | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 92 | Singapore | Cited for the position that while the courts may show some greater indulgence to litigants in person, such indulgence is not to be expected as a matter of entitlement. |
| Ong Chai Hong (executrix of the estate of Chiang Chia Liang, deceased) v Chiang Shirley and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1006 | Singapore | Cited for the position that indulgence to litigants in person does not mean that they can act without regard to rules and procedures. |
| CPIT Investments Ltd v Qilin World Capital Ltd and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 38 | Singapore | Cited for the clarification that the costs regimes for proceedings in the SICC and Singapore High Court rest on different bases. |
| Chia Kim Huay (litigation representative of the estate of Chua Chye Hee, deceased) v Saw Shu Mawa Min Min and another | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 1096 | Singapore | Cited for the express reference to s 2(5) of the Interpretation Act in the context of a discussion on whether ordinary service by post under O 62 r 6(1)(b) had been satisfied. |
| Lim Hwee Meng v Citadel Investment Pte Ltd | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 101 | Singapore | Cited for the authority that the test for an extension of time to file documents in an existing appeal is usually more lenient than that to file a notice to appeal in order to initiate the appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 57 r 9(4) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 57 r 9(1) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 62 r 6 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Section 2(5) of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 110 r 46(2) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 57 r 3(3A) of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Administration of Justice (Protection) Act 2016 (No 19 of 2016) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Rules of Court
- Order 57 Rule 9(4)
- Order 57 Rule 9(1)
- Litigants in person
- Service of documents
- Extension of time
- Record of Appeal
- Appellant’s Case
- Core Bundle
- Deemed withdrawal
15.2 Keywords
- Civil Appeal
- Singapore
- Rules of Court
- Deemed Withdrawal
- Litigant in Person
- Service
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 90 |
| Appellate Practice | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Litigant-in-person | 60 |
| Judgments and Orders | 50 |
| Costs | 40 |
| Jurisdiction | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Service of Documents
- Litigants in Person