NW Corp Pte Ltd v HK Petroleum: Setting Aside Default Judgment & Service Out of Jurisdiction

In NW Corp Pte Ltd v HK Petroleum Enterprises Cooperation Ltd, the Singapore High Court considered an application by HK Petroleum to set aside a default judgment obtained by NW Corp. The court addressed issues of service out of jurisdiction and the operative contract between the parties. The court allowed the application, setting aside the default judgment. NW Corp's claim arose from a breach of contract claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application to set aside the default judgment is allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court sets aside default judgment against HK Petroleum due to improper service. Key issues: service out of jurisdiction and operative contract.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
NW Corp Pte LtdClaimantCorporationDefault Judgment Set AsideLost
HK Petroleum Enterprises Cooperation LtdDefendantCorporationApplication AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Perry PehAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Foo Jong Han ReyKSCGP Juris LLP
Kirsten SiowOon & Bazul LLP
Levin LinOon & Bazul LLP

4. Facts

  1. NWC and HKE entered into transactions for the sale of light Naphtha crude and Gasoil.
  2. NWC claimed HKE breached the Naptha Agreement by failing to deliver the light Naphtha crude.
  3. NWC claimed HKE breached the Gasoil Agreement by failing to confirm the supply and delivery of the Gasoil cargo.
  4. HKE disputed that the Written Contract was the operative agreement for the Naptha Transaction.
  5. HKE argued NWC breached payment terms under the Naptha Agreement.
  6. NWC served the originating process on HKE in Hong Kong without obtaining the court’s approval for service out of jurisdiction.

5. Formal Citations

  1. NW Corp Pte Ltd v HK Petroleum Enterprises Cooperation Ltd, Originating Claim No 295 of 2023 (Summons No 2812 of 2023), [2023] SGHCR 22

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Deal recap circulated between HKE and NWC for Naptha Transaction.
NWC and HKE entered into an agreement in connection with the Naptha Transaction.
Formal written contract dated for Naptha Agreement.
Originating Claim and Statement of Claim filed.
Defendant served with Cause Papers.
NWC's counsel sent a copy of the Originating Claim to two officers of HKE.
HKE responded to NWC’s solicitors by e-mail, asking for amicable resolution of the dispute.
NWC filed an application for judgment.
HKE appointed solicitors in OC 295.
HKE’s solicitors filed a Request for Permission to file an application for an extension of time to set aside JUD 252.
Application for extension of time in HC/SUM 2183/2023 was filed.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Service Out of Jurisdiction
    • Outcome: The court held that the Law and Jurisdiction clause in the Written Contract constituted a contract that allowed for service out of Singapore within O 8 r 1(3) of the ROC 2021.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to obtain court approval for service out of jurisdiction
      • Interpretation of contract clause allowing for service out of Singapore
  2. Setting Aside Default Judgment
    • Outcome: The court set aside the default judgment, finding the Gasoil JUD to be an irregular default judgment and the Naptha JUD to be a regular default judgment but set aside due to a prima facie defense.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Regular vs. Irregular Default Judgment
      • Application of ex debito justitiae rule
      • Prima facie defense
  3. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court did not make a determination on whether there was a breach of contract, but found that HKE had demonstrated a prima facie defense in respect of the entirety of NWC’s claims under the Naptha Agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Repudiatory breach
      • Failure to deliver cargo
      • Failure to make payment

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Commodities Trading
  • Chemicals

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 907SingaporeCited for the distinction between regular and irregular default judgments and the principles for setting aside such judgments.
Evans v BartlamN/AYes[1937] AC 473N/ACited for the principle that the court has the power to revoke its coercive power where it has been obtained by a failure to follow the rules of procedure.
Lim Quee Choo (suing as co-administratrix of the estate of Koh Jit Meng) and another v David Rasif and anotherHigh CourtYes[2008] SGHC 36SingaporeCited for the principle that the court has the power to revoke its coercive power where it has been obtained by a failure to follow the rules of procedure.
Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow VictorN/AYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 537SingaporeCited for the principle that the rules of procedure exist to serve the ultimate and overriding objective of substantive justice.
Powercom Yuraku Pte Ltd v Sunpower Semiconductor Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2023] 4 SLR 867SingaporeCited for the court's discretion to set aside a default judgment only in part, rather than wholly.
Pacific Assets Management Ltd and others v Chen Lip KeongHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 658SingaporeCited for the principle that parties could reach an agreement between themselves as to another mode of service of a writ outside of the Rules of Court.
Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-GeneralN/AYes[2017] 2 SLR 850SingaporeCited for the principles of purposive interpretation of a legislative provision.
Zoom Communications Ltd v Broadcast Solutions Pte LtdN/AYes[2014] 4 SLR 500SingaporeCited for the principle that the jurisdiction of the Singapore courts is territorial and that service of originating process is one of the main avenues by which the civil jurisdiction of the Singapore courts can be established.
COSCO Shipping Specialized Carriers Co, Ltd v PT OKI Pulp & Paper Mills and othersHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 149SingaporeCited for the principle that service of originating process operates as one of the main or primary avenues by which the civil jurisdiction of the Singapore courts can be established.
Muhd Munir v Noor Hidah and other applicationsN/AYes[1990] 2 SLR(R) 348SingaporeCited for the definition of jurisdiction as the authority to hear and determine a dispute that is brought before it.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 10 r 3 of the ROC 2014
Order 7 r 2(1)(d)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court 2021Singapore
Order 6 r 6(5) of the Rules of Court 2021Singapore
Order 8 r 1(2) of the Rules of Court 2021Singapore
Order 8 r 1(3) of the Rules of Court 2021Singapore
Order 3 r 2(8) of the ROC 2021Singapore
Order 6 rr 6, 7 and 9 of the ROC 2021Singapore
Order 3 r 1(2)(b) and O 3 r 1(2)(d) of the ROC 2021Singapore
Section 16(1)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore
Order 8 r 1(1) of the ROC 2021Singapore
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Order 13 r 8 and O 19 r 9 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Order 6 r 6(2) of the ROC 2021Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Service out of Singapore
  • Default judgment
  • Originating process
  • Naptha Agreement
  • Gasoil Agreement
  • Law and Jurisdiction clause
  • Ex debito justitiae
  • Prima facie defence
  • Repudiatory breach
  • Registered mail

15.2 Keywords

  • Service out of jurisdiction
  • Default judgment
  • Breach of contract
  • Singapore High Court
  • Rules of Court
  • Setting aside judgment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Judgments and Orders95
Civil Procedure90
Setting aside85
Jurisdiction80
Civil Practice75
Service of document out of jurisdiction70
Contract Law60

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Service of Process