Zhang Jinhua v Yip Zhao Lin: Setting Aside Default Judgment Based on Prima Facie Defence
Zhang Jinhua appealed against the decision of the learned Assistant Registrar to set aside a default judgment obtained against Yip Zhao Lin in the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore. The originating claim was commenced on 31 July 2023, seeking payment as agreed in a deed. The primary legal issue was whether the default judgment should be set aside based on the respondent's claim of a prima facie defence of duress and/or unconscionability. Mohamed Faizal JC dismissed the appeal, finding that the respondent had demonstrated a triable issue on the facts.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal to set aside a default judgment. The court found a triable issue of duress/unconscionability, and the appeal was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zhang Jinhua | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Yip Zhao Lin | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Faizal | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Respondent signed a Deed promising to repay RMB38.04m by the end of 2019.
- The Appellant commenced HC/OC 490/2023 seeking payment as agreed in the Deed.
- The Appellant obtained an order for substituted service to serve cause papers on the Respondent.
- The Respondent claimed he was unaware of the proceedings until served with bankruptcy papers.
- The Respondent alleged he signed the Deed under duress due to threats and harassment.
- The Appellant argued the Respondent's defence was implausible given his business experience.
- The Deed stipulated that the Respondent should remain contactable on WeChat.
5. Formal Citations
- Zhang Jinhua v Yip Zhao Lin, Originating Claim No 490 of 2023 (Registrar’s Appeal No 80 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 180
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Deed entered into by the Respondent | |
| Appellant commenced HC/OC 490/2023 | |
| Appellant obtained an order for substituted service | |
| Appellant obtained JUD 359 | |
| Bankruptcy application filed | |
| Bankruptcy application served on the Respondent | |
| Respondent filed HC/SUM 552/2024 to set aside JUD 359 | |
| Oral Judgment | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment |
7. Legal Issues
- Setting Aside Default Judgment
- Outcome: The court held that the default judgment was correctly set aside due to the presence of a prima facie defence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Irregular Service
- Prima Facie Defence
- Delay in Application
- Duress
- Outcome: The court found that the Respondent's account, if proven true, could satisfy the requirements of duress.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Compulsion of Will
- Illegitimacy of Pressure
- Unconscionability
- Outcome: The court found that the Respondent's account, if proven true, could satisfy the requirements of unconscionability.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Infirmity of Party
- Exploitation of Infirmity
- Fairness of Transaction
- Substituted Service
- Outcome: The court expressed reservations about the regularity of the default judgment, suggesting it could be considered irregular due to issues with substituted service.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Effectiveness of Service
- Notice to Party
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Setting Aside Default Judgment
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Debt Recovery
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd v Frankel Motor Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 623 | Singapore | Cited regarding the effectiveness of service once an order for substituted service is issued. |
| Mercurine Pte Ltd v Canberra Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 907 | Singapore | Cited for the standards applicable for setting aside regular judgments as against irregular judgments. |
| Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 32 | Singapore | Cited regarding the need for a credible defence, not mere assertions, when seeking leave to defend. |
| Microsoft Corporation v Electro-Wide Limited | N/A | Yes | [1997] FSR 580 | N/A | Cited regarding the need for a credible defence, not mere assertions, when seeking leave to defend. |
| Watt v Barnett | N/A | Yes | (1878) 3 QBD 363 | N/A | Cited regarding the effect of service according to a substituted service order. |
| Storey, David Ian Andrew v Planet Arkadia Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHCR 7 | Singapore | Cited regarding the standard of probability that the claimant must meet for substituted service. |
| Porter v Freudenberg | N/A | Yes | [1915] 1 KB 857 | N/A | Cited regarding the standard of probability that the claimant must meet for substituted service. |
| The “Vasiliy Golovnin” | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 994 | Singapore | Cited regarding the duty of full and frank disclosure on an ex parte application. |
| E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and another (Orion Oil Ltd and another, interveners) | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 232 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of economic duress. |
| BOM v BOK and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 349 | Singapore | Cited for the doctrine of unconscionability. |
| Abdul Salam Asanaru Pillai (trading as South Kerala Cashew Exporters) v Nomanbhoy & Sons Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 856 | Singapore | Cited regarding conditional leave to defend. |
| Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak and others and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1061 | Singapore | Cited regarding the opportunity to be heard. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 3 Rule 2(8)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 6 Rule 4 ROC 2021 |
| Order 7 Rule 7 ROC 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Deed
- Default Judgment
- Substituted Service
- Duress
- Unconscionability
- Prima Facie Defence
- Bankruptcy Application
15.2 Keywords
- Default Judgment
- Substituted Service
- Duress
- Unconscionability
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Setting Aside Default Judgement | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 70 |
| Substituted Service | 70 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Duress | 60 |
| Prima Facie Defence | 50 |
| Misrepresentation | 50 |
| Undue Influence | 50 |
| Bankruptcy | 40 |
| Administrative Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Debt Recovery