Lee Wen Jervis v Jask Pte Ltd: Amendment of Defence and Counterclaim in Unpaid Debt Claim
In Lee Wen Jervis v Jask Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to dismiss the defendants' application to amend their Defence and add a Counterclaim in a suit for unpaid debt. The plaintiff, Lee Wen Jervis, claimed against the defendants, Jask Pte Ltd, Doraiswamy Chitra, and Udehkumar s/o Sethuraju, for failing to repay loans. The defendants sought to amend their Defence to argue that the plaintiff was an unlicensed moneylender and that the loan agreements were shams. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that the proposed amendments did not disclose a reasonable defence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed an appeal to amend a defence and add a counterclaim in a suit for unpaid debt, finding no reasonable defence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Wen Jervis | Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Won | Vijai Dharamdas Parwani, Lim Shu Yi |
| Jask Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Dhanwant Singh, K V Sudeep Kumar |
| Doraiswamy Chitra | Defendant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Dhanwant Singh, K V Sudeep Kumar |
| Udehkumar s/o Sethuraju | Defendant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | Dhanwant Singh, K V Sudeep Kumar |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Aedit Abdullah | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Vijai Dharamdas Parwani | Parwani Law LLC |
| Lim Shu Yi | Parwani Law LLC |
| Dhanwant Singh | S K Kumar Law Practice LLP |
| K V Sudeep Kumar | S K Kumar Law Practice LLP |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff loaned money to the 1st defendant pursuant to various loan agreements.
- The 2nd and 3rd defendants gave personal guarantees to the plaintiff in exchange for the loans.
- The 2nd and 3rd defendants gave the plaintiff options to purchase properties if the debt was not paid on time.
- The 1st defendant failed to repay the debt on time.
- The defendants entered into a settlement agreement with the plaintiff.
- The defendants failed to abide by the settlement agreement.
- The defendants sought to amend their Defence to argue that the plaintiff was an unlicensed moneylender.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Wen Jervis v Jask Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 816 of 2019(Registrar’s Appeal No 56 of 2020), [2020] SGHC 75
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 1) filed | |
| Defence filed | |
| Defendants filed SUM 51 to amend Defence | |
| Plaintiff’s submissions filed | |
| Defendants’ submissions filed | |
| Plaintiff’s 2nd submissions filed | |
| Hearing date | |
| Plaintiff’s submissions filed | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court held that the amendments sought did not disclose a reasonable defence and dismissed the appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 3 SLR 524
- [1990] 1 SLR(R) 337
- [1992] 3 SLR(R) 940
- Unlicensed Moneylending
- Outcome: The court found that the proposed amendments relating to the unlicensed moneylending defence did not disclose a reasonable defence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2014] 3 SLR 524
- Sham Agreements
- Outcome: The court found that the proposed amendments relating to the sham defence also did not disclose a reasonable defence as no facts were pleaded to substantiate breaches of any other legislation.
- Category: Substantive
- Unconscionability
- Outcome: The court found that the amendments put forward by the defendants in support of the unconscionability doctrine did not disclose a reasonable defence.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] 1 SLR 349
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for unpaid debt
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield International (Hong Kong) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 524 | Singapore | Cited for the principles to be adopted in relation to section 14(2) of the Moneylenders Act and the burden of proof regarding excluded moneylenders. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew | N/A | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 337 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that amendment of pleadings should only be allowed if it discloses a reasonable defence to the claim. |
| Lim Yong Swan v Lim Jee Tee and another | N/A | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 940 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that amendments can only be allowed if they raise a reasonable defence. |
| BOM v BOK and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 349 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the modified narrow doctrine of unconscionability in Singapore. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Unlicensed moneylender
- Excluded moneylender
- Sham defence
- Unconscionability defence
- Option to purchase
- Personal guarantee
- Settlement agreement
15.2 Keywords
- unpaid debt
- amendment of pleadings
- unlicensed moneylender
- sham agreement
- unconscionability
- singapore
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Debt Recovery
- Moneylending
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Moneylenders Act