First Property Holdings v U Myo Nyunt: Setting Aside Default Judgment for Delay

In First Property Holdings Pte Ltd v U Myo Nyunt, the Singapore High Court addressed the defendant's application to set aside a default judgment and assessment judgment due to delay. The plaintiff, First Property Holdings Pte Ltd, had sued the defendant, U Myo Nyunt @ Michael Nyunt, for breach of trust, breach of fiduciary duties, and breach of contract. The court set aside the Default Judgment for the liquidated sum of US$585,143.67 and dismissed the rest of the defendant’s appeal against the AR’s decision. The court also dismissed the defendant’s application to set aside the Assessment Judgment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

The court set aside the Default Judgment for the liquidated sum of US$585,143.67 and dismissed the rest of the defendant’s appeal against the AR’s decision. The court also dismissed the defendant’s application to set aside the Assessment Judgment.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case regarding an application to set aside a default judgment due to delay. The court set aside part of the judgment.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
U Myo Nyunt @ Michael NyuntDefendant, AppellantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
First Property Holdings Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Vergis S AbrahamProvidence Law Asia LLC
Zhuo JiaxiangProvidence Law Asia LLC
Kenny LauProvidence Law Asia LLC
Lim Jun Rui IvanAllen & Gledhill LLP
Chan Tai-HuiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Jason SCAllen & Gledhill LLP
Gan Yun Han RebeccaAllen & Gledhill LLP
Ong Min-Tse PaulAllen & Gledhill LLP
Oh Jialing EvangelineAllen & Gledhill LLP
Cheong Rui Jie, KironAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff and defendant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement for property development in Myanmar.
  2. Plaintiff provided a US$7.6m loan to TCC, a Myanmar company, under a Convertible Performance Debenture.
  3. Plaintiff claimed the defendant breached fiduciary duties by transferring property out of TCC.
  4. Plaintiff commenced action against the defendant in Singapore after the defendant failed to appear.
  5. Plaintiff obtained a Default Judgment against the defendant.
  6. Defendant applied to set aside the Service Order, Default Judgment, and Assessment Judgment due to delay.
  7. Defendant claimed the plaintiff's claim was time-barred.

5. Formal Citations

  1. First Property Holdings Pte Ltd v U Myo Nyunt (alias Michael Nyunt), Suit No 601 of 2015 (Summonses Nos 4246 and 4399 of 2019) (Registrar’s Appeal No 26 of 2020), [2020] SGHC 276

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff and defendant entered into a Joint Venture Agreement
Plaintiff and TCC entered into a Convertible Performance Debenture
TCC was incorporated
TCC entered into a Contract of Sale of Land and Building for the Natmauk Lane Property
Plaintiff entered into a Loan Agreement with the defendant
Defendant caused TCC to transfer the Natmauk Lane Property to himself and his wife
Plaintiff commenced Criminal Case 102/2003 in Myanmar
Plaintiff commenced Case 330/2003 in Myanmar
Plaintiff commenced Case 2275/2004 in Myanmar
TCC was placed into liquidation
Yangon Northern District Court acquitted the defendant in Criminal Case 102/2003
Supreme Court of the Union of Myanmar dismissed the appeal in Criminal Case 102/2003
Plaintiff commenced the present action against the defendant
Plaintiff obtained the Service Order
Plaintiff effected personal service on the defendant in Australia
Plaintiff entered the Default Judgment
Default Judgment and Assessment Judgment were registered in Australia
Defendant applied to set aside the registration of the judgments in Australia
Court set aside the Default Judgment for US$585,143.67 and dismissed the rest of the appeal
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Setting Aside Default Judgment
    • Outcome: The court set aside the Default Judgment for the liquidated sum of US$585,143.67 but dismissed the application to set aside the Assessment Judgment.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delay in application
      • Reasons for delay
      • Defence on the merits
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 907
  2. Service Out of Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application to set aside the Service Order.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Requirements for grant of leave
      • Forum conveniens
      • Full and frank disclosure
    • Related Cases:
      • [2010] 3 SLR 1007
      • [2014] 4 SLR 500
      • [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1156
      • [2019] 1 SLR 779
  3. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court did not make a definitive ruling on the breach of fiduciary duty claim but considered it in the context of the application to set aside the default judgment.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court considered the breach of contract claim in the context of the application to set aside the default judgment.
    • Category: Substantive
  5. Laches
    • Outcome: The court found that the facts of the present case did not present a strong case for the application of the doctrine of laches.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 4 SLR(R) 769
      • [2013] 2 SLR 1200

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Account of Profits

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue ChewHigh CourtYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 673SingaporeCited for the principle that the question of whether there is a defence on the merits is the dominant feature to be weighed against the applicant’s explanation for the default and any delay as well as against prejudice to the other party when setting aside a default judgment entered without a trial.
Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 907SingaporeCited for the principle that the court will scrutinise the reasons for the delay in applying to set aside a default judgment; where the delay is deliberate, with the intent to gain some litigation advantage, a late application should prima facie be viewed uncharitably.
Dynasty Line Ltd (in liquidation) v Sukamto Sia and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 277SingaporeCited for the definition of fraudulent breach of trust as dishonest.
Yong Kheng Leong v Panweld Trading Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 173SingaporeCited for the definition of fraudulent breach of trust as dishonest.
Cytec Industries Pte ltd v APP Chemicals International (Mau) LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 769SingaporeCited for the principles of the equitable doctrine of laches.
eSys Technologies Pte Ltd v nTan Corporate Advisory Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2013] 2 SLR 1200SingaporeCited for approval of Cytec Industries Pte ltd v APP Chemicals International (Mau) Ltd regarding the doctrine of laches.
Ang Kim Soon v Sunray Marine Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1997] 1 SLR(R) 714SingaporeCited to support the case against the defendant’s application to set aside the Default Judgment for damages to be assessed, stating that the defendant was bound to set aside this interlocutory judgment at the earliest opportunity.
Siemens AG v Holdrich Investment LtdCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 1007SingaporeCited for the requirements which must be met before the court will grant leave for service out of jurisdiction.
Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2014] 4 SLR 500SingaporeCited for the requirements which must be met before the court will grant leave for service out of jurisdiction.
Bradley Lomas Electrolok Ltd and another v Colt Ventilation East Asia Pte Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 1156SingaporeCited for the principle that a plaintiff must show a “a good arguable case” that his case falls within one of the limbs in O 11 r 1 of the Rules.
Shanghai Turbo Enterprises Ltd v Liu MingCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 779SingaporeCited for the principle that any challenge to the exercise of jurisdiction by the court named in a non-exclusive jurisdiction clause amounted to an attempt to be released from the clause.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Joint Venture Agreement
  • Convertible Performance Debenture
  • Default Judgment
  • Assessment Judgment
  • Service Order
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • TCC
  • Plaintiff’s Investment Moneys
  • Natmauk Lane Property
  • Tarmway Plaza
  • Laches

15.2 Keywords

  • default judgment
  • setting aside
  • delay
  • fiduciary duty
  • breach of contract
  • service out of jurisdiction

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice75
Civil Procedure75
Setting aside60
Contract Law50
Fiduciary Duties50
Principles40
Breach of Contract30
Summary Judgement30
Misrepresentation30
Estoppel30
Costs20
Arbitration10

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Trusts
  • Fiduciary Duties
  • Setting Aside Default Judgment