Mak-Levrion v Shiamala: Summary Judgment Appeal on Acknowledgment of Debt
In Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha @ Mai Jiaqi Natasha v R Shiamala, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard the defendant's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant summary judgment in favor of the claimant for $514,200, an outstanding amount under an Acknowledgment of Debt (AOD). Goh Yihan J allowed the appeal, finding that the claimant failed to establish a prima facie case regarding the exact quantum owed, due to inconsistencies within the AOD and related loan agreements. The court granted the defendant unconditional leave to defend the claim in a full trial.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendant's appeal allowed; summary judgment for the claimant was overturned, and the defendant was granted unconditional leave to defend the claim in a full trial.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against summary judgment for debt repayment. The court allowed the appeal, finding inconsistencies in the claimant's evidence regarding the debt quantum.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha @ Mai Jiaqi Natasha | Claimant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Arul Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan, Adrian Kho Ngiat Sun |
| R Shiamala | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Arul Andre Ravindran Saravanapavan | Arul Chew & Partners |
| Adrian Kho Ngiat Sun | Arul Chew & Partners |
4. Facts
- Claimant alleged she made interest-free loans to the defendant between 2016 and 2019.
- Defendant signed an Acknowledgment of Debt (AOD) for $525,200 on 24 June 2021.
- Claimant commenced HC/OC 241/2023 against the defendant for breach of contract.
- Defendant did not file any affidavits or submissions in SUM 1706.
- The AOD contained inconsistencies regarding the outstanding sum.
- Claimant's spreadsheet showed a different total sum owing than the AOD.
- The claimant's evidence was inconsistent regarding interest payments.
5. Formal Citations
- Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha (alias Mai Jiaqi Natasha) v R Shiamala, Originating Claim No 241 of 2023 (Registrar’s Appeal No 202 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 335
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Acknowledgment of Debt signed | |
| Statement of Claim filed | |
| Case conference held | |
| Case conference held | |
| Hearing before the Assistant Registrar | |
| Hearing before Goh Yihan J | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court held that the claimant failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment due to inconsistencies in the evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to establish a prima facie case
- Inconsistencies in evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 1 SLR 325
- [2014] 2 SLR 1342
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court did not rule on the breach of contract claim itself, but found that the claimant's evidence supporting the claim was inconsistent.
- Category: Substantive
- Acknowledgment of Debt
- Outcome: The court found the Acknowledgment of Debt to be ambiguous and inconsistent with other evidence, undermining the claimant's case.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Ambiguity of terms
- Inconsistency with other evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 4 SLR(R) 924
- [2007] 3 SLR(R) 40
- [1965-1967] SLR(R) 676
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Debt
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNP Paribas SA v Jacob Agam and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 83 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may show greater indulgence to a self-represented party, but this is not to be expected as a matter of entitlement. |
| Nobarani v Mariconte | High Court of Australia | Yes | (2018) 359 ALR 31 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the absence of legal representation on one side ought not to induce a court to deprive the other side of one jot of its lawful entitlement. |
| Ong Chai Hong (executrix of the estate of Chiang Chia Liang, deceased) v Chiang Shirley and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1006 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a self-represented party may not use their status to conduct a case in an unreasonable manner and yet remain immune from adverse costs orders. |
| Foo Jee Boo and another v Foo Jhee Tuang and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHC 260 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a self-represented party may not use their status to conduct a case in an unreasonable manner and yet remain immune from adverse costs orders. |
| VYR v VYS | High Court | Yes | [2023] 3 SLR 1370 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that although a self-represented party should be given the opportunity to present their case and pursue their claims, the court cannot give such aid or indulgence that it tilts the scale in favour of one or the other. |
| Muhammad Hisham bin Hamzah v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 171 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a self-represented party may not rehash arguments that have been considered and rejected on appeal with impunity. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 642 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the extent of leeway given to self-represented parties may differ depending on whether they are experienced litigants. |
| Pradeepto Kumar Biswas v Sabyasachi Mukherjee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 79 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the extent of leeway given to self-represented parties may differ depending on whether they are experienced litigants. |
| ADJ v ADK | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 92 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the extent of leeway given to self-represented parties may differ depending on whether they are experienced litigants. |
| Horizon Capital Fund v Ollech David | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 164 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicable principles under the Rules of Court 2021 are not different from those under the Rules of Court 2014. |
| M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko | High Court | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 325 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the defendant must establish that there is a fair or reasonable probability that he has a real or bona fide defence. |
| Ritzland Investment Pte Ltd v Grace Management & Consultancy Services Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1342 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the defendant must establish that there is a fair or reasonable probability that he has a real or bona fide defence. |
| Prosperous Credit Pte Ltd v Gen Hwa Franchise International Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 53 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will not grant permission to defend if the defendant only provides a mere assertion, contained in an affidavit, of a given situation which forms the basis of his defence. |
| Otto Systems Singapore Pte Ltd v Greenline-Onyx Envirotech Phils, Inc | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 924 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that where there is an AOD or a similar document, the courts will usually find that the claimant has not only established a prima facie case but is also entitled to summary judgment. |
| Greenline-Onyx Envirotech Phils, Inc v Otto Systems Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 40 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that where there is an AOD or a similar document, the courts will usually find that the claimant has not only established a prima facie case but is also entitled to summary judgment. |
| Queensland Insurance Co Ltd v Lee Brothers Organisation | Federal Court | Yes | [1965-1967] SLR(R) 676 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that where there is an AOD or a similar document, the courts will usually find that the claimant has not only established a prima facie case but is also entitled to summary judgment. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 9 r 17 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Acknowledgment of Debt
- Summary Judgment
- Prima Facie Case
- Bona Fide Defence
- Interest-Free Loans
- Quantum
- Inconsistencies
- Affidavit
- Self-Represented Party
15.2 Keywords
- debt
- summary judgment
- acknowledgment of debt
- civil procedure
- contract law
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Debt Recovery
- Summary Judgment
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Debt Recovery