Zhou Wenjing v Shun Heng Credit: Application for Permission to Appeal Default Judgment
In Zhou Wenjing v Shun Heng Credit Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore considered an application by Zhou Wenjing for permission to appeal a decision of the District Judge regarding a default judgment. The High Court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Goh Yihan, allowed the application, finding a prima facie case of error by the District Judge. The court emphasized that substantive fairness must trump procedural expedience and inexpensive determination of civil proceedings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Applicant's application allowed; permission to appeal granted.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court granted Zhou Wenjing permission to appeal a default judgment, finding a prima facie case of error by the District Judge. The court emphasized fairness over procedural expedience.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhou Wenjing | Applicant | Individual | Application Allowed | Won | Foo Ho Chew |
| Shun Heng Credit Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | Vijai Dharamdas Parwani, Huang Po Han |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Foo Ho Chew | H C Law Practice |
| Vijai Dharamdas Parwani | Parwani Law LLC |
| Huang Po Han | Parwani Law LLC |
4. Facts
- The applicant was the second defendant in MC/MC 7384/2021.
- Default judgment was entered against the applicant on 2022-01-24.
- The applicant applied to set aside the default judgment, but the application was dismissed.
- The applicant appealed the dismissal, but the appeal was dismissed.
- The applicant applied for leave to appeal, but the application was dismissed.
- The applicant applied to the High Court for permission to appeal.
- The applicant's counsel was absent from the Case Management Conference due to illness.
5. Formal Citations
- Zhou Wenjing v Shun Heng Credit Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 551 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 313
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Default Judgment entered against the applicant. | |
| Applicant filed SUM 373 to set aside the Default Judgment. | |
| SUM 373 heard by the Deputy Registrar. | |
| Deputy Registrar dismissed SUM 373. | |
| DJ dismissed the applicant’s appeal in RA 16. | |
| DJ dismissed the application for leave to appeal in SUM 3233. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Permission to Appeal
- Outcome: The court granted permission to appeal, finding a prima facie case of error.
- Category: Procedural
- Setting Aside Default Judgment
- Outcome: The court found that the Default Judgment should have been set aside.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Permission to Appeal
- Setting Aside Default Judgment
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Guarantee
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 907 | Singapore | Cited for the applicable test for setting aside a default judgment, which is whether the applicant has raised a prima facie case in the sense of showing that there are triable or arguable issues. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another | N/A | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Cited for the grounds for granting permission to appeal, including the existence of a prima facie case of error, a question of general principle decided for the first time, or a question of importance upon which further argument and a decision of a higher tribunal would be to the public advantage. |
| Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 138 | Singapore | Cited to explain that a case of error should only refer to an error of law. |
| IW v IX | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 135 | Singapore | Cited for its reference to Tay JC’s explanation in Abdul Rahman as “a useful amplification of the first guideline set in Lee Kuan Yew”. |
| Essar Steel Ltd v Bayerische Landesbank and others | N/A | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR(R) 25 | Singapore | Cited as a case that held that “case of error” can include errors of fact. |
| Lin Jianwei v Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 229 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the judge seems to have accepted the plaintiff’s submission that “prima facie case of error” can include both errors of law and errors of fact. |
| UD Trading Group Holding Pte Ltd v TA Private Capital Security Agent Limited and another | Appellate Division of the High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 3 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that the prima facie case of error must be one of law and not fact. |
| Engine Holdings Asia Pte Ltd v JTrust Asia Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 370 | Singapore | Cited as a case that left open the question of whether, in exceptional circumstances, permission to appeal may be granted if there was an error of fact which was obvious from the record. |
| Hwa Aik Engineering Pte Ltd v Munshi Mohammad Faiz and another | Appellate Division of the High Court | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1288 | Singapore | Cited for describing the first of the three established grounds for granting permission to appeal as “a prima facie case of error of law”. |
| Smith v Cosworth Casting Processes Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 WLR 1538 | England and Wales | Cited for the argument that the guidelines in this case should guide the application of the grounds in Lee Kuan Yew. |
| Pandian Marimuthu v Guan Leong Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 18 | Singapore | Cited for GP Selvam J’s alternative formulation of the test in Smith v Cosworth. |
| Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin | N/A | Yes | [1989] 1 SLR(R) 588 | Singapore | Cited for the consideration of whether there is a likelihood of substantial injustice if permission is not granted. |
| National Australia Bank Limited v Singh | N/A | Yes | [1995] 1 Qd R 377 | Australia | Cited as an example of an application for the setting aside of a default judgment where illness was held to be an acceptable reason for absence. |
| MS v A local authority | English High Court | Yes | [2020] EWHC 1622 (QB) | England and Wales | Cited for setting aside a judgment entered in default of appearance during the COVID-19 pandemic. |
| Genuine Pte Ltd v HSBC Bank Middle East Ltd, Dubai | High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 1186 | Singapore | Cited for distinguishing MS v A local authority, but not disagreeing with the general proposition that a default judgment obtained in technical compliance with the relevant procedural rules could nonetheless be regarded as an irregular one based on the facts of the case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
| Order 108 r 3(7) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Default Judgment
- Permission to Appeal
- Prima Facie Case of Error
- Case Management Conference
- Rules of Court
- Ex Debito Justitiae
- Irregular Judgment
15.2 Keywords
- Default Judgment
- Appeal
- Civil Procedure
- Singapore
- High Court
- Rules of Court
- Permission to Appeal
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Rules of Court