Wang Piao v Lee Wee Ching: Amendment of Defence Post-Summary Judgment

In Wang Piao v Lee Wee Ching, the High Court of Singapore addressed the defendant's application to amend his defence and add defendants to a counterclaim after summary judgment had been entered against him in an originating claim for breach of a loan agreement. The court, presided over by Goh Yihan JC, dismissed the application, emphasizing that amendments post-summary judgment should be permitted sparingly and that the proposed amendments did not raise plausible defenses. The court also considered whether the defendant was attempting to have a 'second bite of the cherry'.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed Lee Wee Ching's application to amend his defence after summary judgment in a breach of loan agreement claim.

1.7 Decision Date

3 August 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lee Wee Ching	Defendant	Individual	Application dismissed	Lost	Narayanan Sreenivasan SC of K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin of K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Partheban s/o Pandiyan of K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Thrumurgan s/o Ramapiram of Trident Law Corporation Tan Lai Tian Timothy of Trident Law Corporation Mohamad Hasbu Haneef bin Abdul Malik of Trident Law Corporation Lokman Hakim bin Mohamed Rafi of Trident Law Corporation
Wang Piao	Claimant	Individual	Application dismissed	Won	Lim Yanqing Esther Candice of Braddell Brothers LLP Tang Kai Qing of Braddell Brothers LLP Edmund Kronenburg of Braddell Brothers LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Goh Yihan	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Narayanan Sreenivasan SC	K&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin	K&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Partheban s/o Pandiyan	K&L Gates Straits Law LLC
Thrumurgan s/o Ramapiram	Trident Law Corporation
Tan Lai Tian Timothy	Trident Law Corporation
Mohamad Hasbu Haneef bin Abdul Malik	Trident Law Corporation
Lokman Hakim bin Mohamed Rafi	Trident Law Corporation
Lim Yanqing Esther Candice	Braddell Brothers LLP
Tang Kai Qing	Braddell Brothers LLP
Edmund Kronenburg	Braddell Brothers LLP

4. Facts

Claimant extended a US$1,100,000 loan to the defendant.
Defendant agreed to repay US$1,950,000 within six months.
Defendant claimed the funds were for purchasing an 'Apek Vantage Unit' for the claimant.
Defendant did not recall executing the Loan Agreement.
Summary judgment was entered against the defendant for US$1,950,000 plus interest.
Defendant sought to amend his defence post-summary judgment.

5. Formal Citations

Wang Piao v Lee Wee Ching, Originating Claim No 406 of 2022 (Summons No 1463 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 216

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2022-11-22	Claimant commenced OC 406 against the defendant.
2022-12-16	Defendant filed the Defence in OC 406.
2023-01-13	Claimant commenced SUM 104 to seek summary judgment against the defendant.
2023-04-14	Summary judgment granted for the claimant in the sum of US$1,950,000 together with interest.
2023-04-24	Defendant filed an appeal against the decision in SUM 104.
2023-05-04	Defendant requested his solicitors to instruct Mr N Sreenivasan SC to argue the appeal.
2023-05-15	Defendant took out the present application.
2023-07-04	Judgment reserved.
2023-08-04	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Amendment of Defence
- Outcome: The court dismissed the defendant's application to amend his defence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Delay in seeking amendment
  - Introduction of new defenses
  - Materiality of proposed amendments
- Related Cases:
  - [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502
  - [2010] 1 SLR 52
  - [1993] 3 SLR(R) 640
  - [1987] AC 189
  - [2012] 1 SLR 457
  - [2010] 4 SLR 1020
  - [2004] 2 SLR(R) 173
  - [2005] 2 SLR(R) 425
  - [2010] 2 SLR 710
  - [2014] 3 SLR 524
  - [2006] 2 SLR(R) 268
  - [2004] 4 SLR(R) 258
  - [2004] 4 SLR(R) 403
  - [1990] 2 SLR(R) 66
  - [2014] 2 SLR 1371
  - [2023] SGHC 164
  - [2014] 2 SLR 123
  - [2015] 1 SLR 325
  - [2014] 2 SLR 1342
  - [2022] 1 SLR 284
  - [2021] SGHC 1
  - [2022] 1 SLR 434
  - [2008] 2 SLR(R) 529
  - [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  - [2023] SGHC(A) 15
  - [2008] 3 SLR(R) 121
  - [2021] 4 SLR 1272
  - [1996] 3 SLR(R) 112
  - [2011] 3 SLR 859
Breach of Loan Agreement
- Outcome: The court found that the proposed amendments did not raise any plausible defenses against the breach of loan agreement claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Enforceability of loan agreement
  - Consideration
  - Illegal moneylending agreement
  - Variation of loan agreement
  - Penalty clause
- Related Cases:
  - [2009] 2 SLR(R) 332
  - [2005] 1 SLR(R) 733
  - [2016] 2 SLR 597
  - [1915] AC 79
  - [2021] 1 SLR 631

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 502	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court may grant leave to amend a pleading at any stage of the proceedings.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 52	Singapore	Cited for the guiding principle that amendments to pleadings ought to be allowed if they would enable the real question and/or issue in controversy between the parties to be determined.
Wright Norman v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR(R) 640	Singapore	Cited for the principle that amendments to pleadings ought to be allowed if they would enable the real question and/or issue in controversy between the parties to be determined.
Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1987] AC 189	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that amendments to pleadings ought to be allowed if they would enable the real question and/or issue in controversy between the parties to be determined.
Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 457	Singapore	Cited for the broader rationale behind the general principle, that an amendment which would enable the real issues between the parties to be tried should generally be allowed.
Tang Chay Seng v Tung Yang Wee Arthur	High Court	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 1020	Singapore	Cited for the need to differentiate between an amendment that merely clarifies an issue in dispute and one that raises a totally different issue at too late a stage.
Asia Business Forum Pte Ltd v Long Ai Sin and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR(R) 173	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the later an application is made, the stronger would be the grounds required to justify it.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Ng Huat Foundations Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 425	Singapore	Cited for the principle that procedural justice is an important aspect of the holistic ideal of justice itself.
Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v DBS Bank Ltd and another appeal and another application	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 2 SLR 710	Singapore	Cited for the principle that amendments of pleadings should be permitted “sparingly” in the post-judgment context.
Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield International (Hong Kong) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 524	Singapore	Cited for the public interest that judicial proceedings be conducted efficiently and with finality.
Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd (Direct Services (HK) Ltd, third party)	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 268	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where amendments of pleadings should be permitted “sparingly” in the post-judgment context.
Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR(R) 258	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where amendments of pleadings should be permitted “sparingly” in the post-judgment context.
Joshua Steven v Joshua Deborah Steven and others	High Court	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR(R) 403	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where amendments of pleadings should be permitted “sparingly” in the post-judgment context.
Invar Realty Pte Ltd v Kenzo Tange Urtec Inc and another	High Court	Yes	[1990] 2 SLR(R) 66	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is impermissible for the plaintiff to seek, through its amendment and the ensuing appeal, to remove the admission on which summary judgment was based.
Olivine Capital Pte Ltd and another v Chia Chin Yan and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 1371	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the courts will consider the materiality of the proposed amendments.
Horizon Capital Fund v Ollech David	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 164	Singapore	Cited for the very purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to enable a claimant to obtain a quick judgment where there is plainly no defence to the claim without trial.
Ling Yew Kong v Teo Vin Li Richard	High Court	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 123	Singapore	Cited for the very purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to enable a claimant to obtain a quick judgment where there is plainly no defence to the claim without trial.
M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko	High Court	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 325	Singapore	Cited for the standard to be applied in assessing the materiality of the proposed amendments in this context.
Ritzland Investment Pte Ltd v Grace Management & Consultancy Services Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 1342	Singapore	Cited for the standard to be applied in assessing the materiality of the proposed amendments in this context.
CSDS Aircraft Sales & Leasing Inc v Singapore Airlines Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 284	Singapore	Cited for the expression that a party should not have a second opportunity to do something he missed the first-time round.
Engineering Centre of Industrial Constructions and Concrete v EFE (SEA) Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 1	Singapore	Cited for the expression that a party should not have a second opportunity to do something he missed the first-time round.
Lim Oon Kuin and others v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (interim judicial managers appointed)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 434	Singapore	Cited for the expression that a party should not have a second opportunity to do something he missed the first-time round.
Blenwel Agencies Pte Ltd v Tan Lee King	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 529	Singapore	Cited for the expression that a party should not have a second opportunity to do something he missed the first-time round.
Ladd v Marshall	N/A	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	N/A	Cited for the expression that a party should not have a second opportunity to do something he missed the first-time round.
Liu Shu Ming and another v Koh Chew Chee and another matter	Appellate Division	Yes	[2023] SGHC(A) 15	Singapore	Cited for the expression that a party should not have a second opportunity to do something he missed the first-time round.
The Oriental Insurance Co Ltd v Reliance National Asia Re Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 121	Singapore	Cited for the expression that a party should not have a second opportunity to do something he missed the first-time round.
CDM and others v CDP	High Court	Yes	[2021] 4 SLR 1272	Singapore	Cited for the expression that a party should not have a second opportunity to do something he missed the first-time round.
Beh Chai Hock v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR(R) 112	Singapore	Cited for the expression that a party should not have a second opportunity to do something he missed the first-time round.
Mah Kiat Seng v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 859	Singapore	Cited for the expression that a party should not have a second opportunity to do something he missed the first-time round.
Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 332	Singapore	Cited for the understanding of consideration to be a return recognised in law which is given in exchange for the promise sought to be enforced.
City Hardware Pte Ltd v Kenrich Electronics Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 733	Singapore	Cited for the Moneylenders Act 2008 (2020 Rev Ed) does not apply to “persons who lend money as an incident of another business or to a few old friends by way of friendship”.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2016] 2 SLR 597	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it may be summarily determined under O 9 r 19 of the ROC 2021, which would save time and costs for the parties.
Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Company, Limited v New Garage and Motor Company, Limited	House of Lords	Yes	[1915] AC 79	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the claimant is seeking the repayment of a debt, not a claim for liquidated damages.
Denka Advantech Pte Ltd and another v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd and another and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 631	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the claimant is seeking the repayment of a debt, not a claim for liquidated damages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 9 rr 10 and 14 of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 9 r 14(3) of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 3 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2021
Order 20 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court 2014
Order 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court 2014
Order 9 r 19 of the Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Moneylenders Act 2008	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Loan Agreement
Summary Judgment
Amendment of Defence
Apek Vantage Unit
Consideration
Moneylending Agreement
Penalty Clause
Set-off

15.2 Keywords

amendment
defence
summary judgment
loan agreement
civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Summary Judgement	80
Civil Practice	75
Amendments	70
Loan Agreement	65
Contract Law	60
Breach of Contract	50
Appeal	40
Costs	30
Property Law	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law
Amendment of Pleadings
Summary Judgment