Pakirisamy Rajoo v Sheila Devi: Setting Aside Dismissal of Claim Due to Absence at Trial

Pakirisamy Rajoo and Sharma Indra Devi filed a claim against their daughter, Sheila Devi, in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, seeking $300,000 based on promissory estoppel. The claim was dismissed due to the plaintiffs' and their counsel's absence at trial. The plaintiffs' subsequent application to set aside the dismissal was also dismissed by Justice See Kee Oon on 9 November 2022, due to unconvincing reasons for absence and failure to demonstrate a real prospect of success.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Summons dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiffs' claim against their daughter was dismissed due to their absence at trial. The court refused to set aside the dismissal, citing lack of valid reasons.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Pakirisamy RajooPlaintiffIndividualSummons DismissedLost
Sharma Indra DeviPlaintiffIndividualSummons DismissedLost
Sheila Devi d/o Pakirisamy RajooDefendantIndividualSummons DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mohan Singh s/o Gurdial SinghS K Kumar Law Practice LLP
Tan Wei Chieh (Chen Weijie)Prestige Legal LLP
Andrew John HanamAndrew LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs filed a claim against their daughter for $300,000 based on promissory estoppel.
  2. The plaintiffs alleged the defendant represented they could reside in her flat for their lifetime.
  3. The defendant sold the flat in March 2022 and asked the plaintiffs to move out.
  4. The plaintiffs claimed the defendant promised to pay them $300,000 if she sold the flat.
  5. The trial was scheduled for 11-12 October 2022, but the plaintiffs and their counsel were absent.
  6. The plaintiffs' counsel did not inform the court or opposing counsel of their absence beforehand.
  7. The plaintiffs submitted medical certificates that were not valid for absence from court attendance.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Pakirisamy Rajoo and another v Sheila Devi d/o Pakirisamy Rajoo, Suit No 327 of 2022 (Summons No 3754 of 2022), [2022] SGHC 285

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Flat sold to the defendant.
Plaintiffs moved out of the flat.
Plaintiffs moved back into the flat.
Defendant sold the flat.
Lawsuit filed.
Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No 1) filed.
Reply and Defence to Counterclaim filed.
Trial commenced; claim dismissed due to plaintiffs' absence.
Summons filed to set aside judgment dismissing the claim.
Hearing of summons to set aside judgment; summons dismissed.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Setting aside dismissal of claim
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the summons to set aside the dismissal of the claim.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Absence of plaintiff at trial
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 673
  2. Professional conduct of counsel
    • Outcome: The court warned the counsel that such conduct is unacceptable and unbecoming of an officer of the court.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Duties and responsibilities of counsel
      • Failure to act with courtesy and fairness
      • Misleading the court

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Promissory Estoppel

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Su Sh-Hsyu v Wee Yue ChewCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 673SingaporeCited for the principle that the reason for a party's absence is the predominant consideration for the court in determining whether a judgment entered at trial in the absence of that party ought to be set aside.
Ching Chew Weng Paul, deceased, and others v Ching Pui Sim and othersN/AYes[2011] 3 SLR 869SingaporeCited for the observation that absence from trial due to personal reasons or difficulties would not necessarily prevent the court from finding that the absence was nonetheless deliberate.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of CourtSingapore
Limitation Act 1959Singapore
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct Rules) 2015Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Setting aside
  • Dismissal of claim
  • Absence at trial
  • Promissory estoppel
  • Medical certificate
  • Professional conduct
  • Arguable case
  • Real prospect of success

15.2 Keywords

  • setting aside dismissal
  • absence at trial
  • promissory estoppel
  • professional conduct
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Legal Ethics and Professional Responsibility85
Civil Practice75
Civil Procedure60

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Legal Ethics