Panircelvan v Ee Hoong Liang: Enforcement of US Judgment, Fraud, and Breach of Natural Justice

The Plaintiffs, Panircelvan s/o Kaliannan and others, sought to enforce a US judgment against the Defendant, Ee Hoong Liang, in Singapore. The Defendant appealed against the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiffs, arguing fraud and breach of natural justice. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no grounds to refuse enforcement of the US judgment. The Defendant has appealed against the High Court's decision.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court refused to block enforcement of a US judgment, rejecting claims of fraud and breach of natural justice by the defendant.

1.7 Decision Date

10 August 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ee Hoong Liang	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Tang Shangwei of WongPartnership LLP Jolyn Khoo of WongPartnership LLP
Panircelvan s/o Kaliannan	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Sim Chong of Sim Chong LLC Senthil Dayalan of Sim Chong LLC
Teo Khim Ho	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Sim Chong of Sim Chong LLC Senthil Dayalan of Sim Chong LLC
Koh Hwee Ben Erin	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Sim Chong of Sim Chong LLC Senthil Dayalan of Sim Chong LLC
Ng Yim Har	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Sim Chong of Sim Chong LLC Senthil Dayalan of Sim Chong LLC
Chang Mun Kum Christina	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Sim Chong of Sim Chong LLC Senthil Dayalan of Sim Chong LLC
Tan Hock Seng	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Sim Chong of Sim Chong LLC Senthil Dayalan of Sim Chong LLC
Roger Teo Kok Wei	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Sim Chong of Sim Chong LLC Senthil Dayalan of Sim Chong LLC
Tong Lay Yeen Giovanna	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Sim Chong of Sim Chong LLC Senthil Dayalan of Sim Chong LLC
Koh Thong Juay	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Sim Chong of Sim Chong LLC Senthil Dayalan of Sim Chong LLC
Tong Siew Geok	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Sim Chong of Sim Chong LLC Senthil Dayalan of Sim Chong LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Kwek Mean Luck	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tang Shangwei	WongPartnership LLP
Jolyn Khoo	WongPartnership LLP
Sim Chong	Sim Chong LLC
Senthil Dayalan	Sim Chong LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiffs sought to enforce a US judgment against the Defendant in Singapore.
Defendant argued the US judgment should not be enforced due to fraud and breach of natural justice.
Defendant claimed Plaintiffs did not disclose settlement payouts received from a related class action.
Defendant asserted he did not receive the Plaintiffs’ request for admissions in the US proceedings.
The US District Court granted summary judgment to the Plaintiffs after the Defendant failed to respond to the motion.
The US Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendant’s appeal.

5. Formal Citations

Panircelvan s/o Kaliannan and others v Ee Hoong Liang, Suit No 858 of 2021 (Registrar’s Appeal No 171 of 2022), [2022] SGHC 190

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-05-01	Plaintiffs commenced the US Action.
2017-08-01	Plaintiffs served the US Amended Complaint on the Defendant.
2017-08-10	Defendant filed Answer to the Amended Complaint.
2017-09-17	Defendant sent an email to the US District Court using his Singnet Email Address.
2017-09-18	Defendant filed Motion to Dismiss Complaint in his personal capacity.
2017-09-18	The US District Court replied to the Defendant’s email dated 17 Sep 2017.
2017-09-18	Defendant sent a further email to the US District Court using his Singnet Email Address.
2017-09-19	The US District Court replied to the Defendant’s email dated 18 Sep 2017.
2017-09-20	The Defendant forwarded to the US District Court, an email which he had sent to the Plaintiffs’ US Counsel on 24 August 2017, using his Singnet Email Address.
2017-09-20	US District Court replied to the Defendant’s email dated 20 September 2017.
2017-09-21	Defendant filed a Position Statement in his personal capacity.
2017-09-21	Defendant used his Singnet Email Address to send an email to the Plaintiffs’ US Counsel.
2017-09-22	The parties participated in a Scheduling Conference before a US magistrate judge.
2017-09-23	Defendant sent an email to the Plaintiffs’ US Counsel.
2017-10-06	Defendant sent an email to the US District Court, using his Singnet Email Address.
2017-10-06	Defendant sent an email to the Plaintiffs’ US Counsel.
2017-10-23	Plaintiffs’ US Counsel sent an email to the Defendant requesting him to provide disclosure by 25 October 2017.
2017-10-20	The Defendant was to give initial disclosure.
2017-12-20	Plaintiffs’ US Counsel sought a status conference to meet with the Court and the Defendant to discuss the Defendant’s failure to provide disclosure.
2018-01-23	The US District Court held a telephone status conference. Defendant failed to answer the call to join the status conference.
2018-01-26	The Plaintiffs filed a Request for Production of Documents.
2018-01-26	The Plaintiffs filed Request for Admissions.
2018-01-26	The Plaintiffs’ US Counsel sent an email to the Defendant attaching the Request for Production of Documents and the Request for Admissions.
2018-01-31	There was a status conference but the Defendant did not attend.
2018-03-02	Plaintiffs’ US Counsel sent an email to the Defendant asking for a response to the Request for Production of Documents and Request of Admissions, and for a meeting.
2018-03-15	Plaintiffs’ US Counsel sent another email to the Defendant asking for a response to the Request of Production of Documents and Request for Admissions and for a meeting.
2018-03-27	The US District Court denied the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Complaint.
2018-03-30	The Plaintiffs filed Motion to Compel Initial Disclosures and Discovery.
2018-04-19	The US District Court ordered the Defendant to provide initial disclosure and discovery responses by 1 May 2018.
2018-09-21	The Plaintiffs filed the Motion for Summary Judgment.
2018-09-26	The Plaintiffs filed the Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment.
2018-09-27	The Plaintiffs’ US Counsel sent an email to the Defendant’s Singnet Email Address attaching inter alia: (a) the Motion for Summary Judgment; and (b) the Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment.
2018-09-29	Personal service of inter alia: (a) the Motion for Summary Judgment; and (b) the Supplement to Motion for Summary Judgment on the Defendant.
2018-10-01	Defendant sent an email to the US District Court.
2018-10-02	Defendant sent a further email to the US District Court.
2018-10-02	The US District Court replied to the Defendant’s email of 2 Oct 2018.
2018-10-02	Defendant replied to the US District Court’s email of 2 Oct 2018 using his Singnet Email Address.
2018-12-31	The US District Court made an Order granting the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment.
2019-01-10	The Plaintiff’s Singapore then solicitors attempted service of the US Judgment on the Defendant.
2019-01-30	Defendant’s US Counsel requested for an extension of time to file an appeal to the US Court of Appeal. The request was granted.
2019-02-28	Defendant filed his Notice of Appeal to the US Court of Appeal.
2019-09-30	Defendant filed a Motion to Disqualify Counsel for the Plaintiffs before the US District Court
2020-06-24	The US District Court dismissed the Motion to Disqualify Counsel
2021-06-18	The US Court of Appeal dismissed the Defendant’s appeal.
2021-09-22	Defendant filed a Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the US Supreme Court.
2022-01-10	The US Supreme Court denied Defendant’s Petition for a Writ of Certiorari.

7. Legal Issues

Fraud
- Outcome: The court found no ground to refuse enforcement of the US Judgment on the basis of the Defendant’s allegation of fraud.
- Category: Substantive
Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court found no ground to refuse enforcement of the US Judgment on the basis of a breach of natural justice.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Enforcement of Foreign Judgment

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 32	Singapore	Cited for the legal principles for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of Court.
Ritzland Investment Pte Ltd v Grace Management & Consultancy Services Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 1342	Singapore	Cited for the legal principles for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of Court.
Olivine Capital Pte Ltd and another v Chia Chin Yan and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] SGCA 19	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Defendant cannot, without exceptional reasons, rely on an un-pleaded defence of fraud in a summary judgment application.
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 1256	Singapore	Cited for the principle that just because the word fraud is not utilised does not mean that a pleading is deficient.
Ching Chew Weng Paul v Ching Pui Sim	High Court	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 869	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the threshold for proving fraud is very high and there must be a dishonest intention to mislead the court.
Eleven Gesellschaft Zur Entwicklung Und Vermarktung Von Netzwerktechonologien MBH v Boxsentry Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] SGHC 210	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the mere fact that the plaintiffs may have presented erroneous or misleading evidence does not necessarily mean that it is a case of fraud; there must be a dishonest intention to mislead the court.
Facade Solution Pte Ltd v Mero Asia Pacific Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2020] 2 SLR 1125	Singapore	Cited for the principle that materiality is established if there is a real prospect that had the adjudicator known the truth, the outcome of the determination might have been different.
Ong Han Nam v Borneo Ventures Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 1248	Singapore	Cited for the distinction between extrinsic fraud and intrinsic fraud.
Hong Pian Tee v Les Placements Germain Gauthier Inc	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] SGCA 18	Singapore	Cited for the principle that foreign judgments can only be challenged on the ground of intrinsic fraud if fresh evidence has come to light which reasonable diligence on the part of the defendant would not have uncovered and the fresh evidence would have been likely to make a difference in the eventual result of the case.
Abouloff v Oppenheimer & Co	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	(1882) 10 QBD 295	England and Wales	Discussed in relation to the principle that so long as fraud is alleged, the defendant is thereby entitled to reopen the issue of fraud.
Jacobs v Beaver	Ontario Court of Appeal	Yes	(1908) 17 OLR 496	Canada	Discussed in relation to the principle that a court should only look into the merits of a foreign judgment if extrinsic fraud was alleged or if the defendant had discovered evidence of intrinsic fraud after the foreign judgment was passed.
Woodruff v McLennan	Ontario Court of Appeal	Yes	(1887) 14 OAR 242	Canada	Cited to elaborate on the types of situations that the Canadian courts regarded as extrinsic fraud.
Alan Chung Wah Tang & Kan Lap Kee v Chung Chun Keung & Joint Group Investment Limited & Vicfont Company Limited	Court of First Instance of the High Court	Yes	[2021] HKCFI 369	Hong Kong	Discussed in relation to the principle that the decision also involved an application for default judgment.
Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak and others and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] SGCA 85	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the question is whether, having been given notice, the litigant has the opportunity of substantially presenting his case before the court.
BRS v BRQ	High Court	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 390	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the fair hearing rule requires a tribunal to consider all important issues.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rule 5 of the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore
O 18 r 8(1)(a) of the ROC	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Enforcement of foreign judgment
Fraud
Breach of natural justice
Summary judgment
Extrinsic fraud
Intrinsic fraud
Deemed admissions
Settlement payouts
Class action

15.2 Keywords

foreign judgment
enforcement
fraud
natural justice
Singapore
US judgment

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments	90
Civil Practice	75
Natural justice	70
Fraud and Deceit	60
Summary Judgement	60

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Conflict of Laws
International Law