Where a defendant fails to respond to a claim against him, the court would ordinarily grant the claimant a judgment in default. However, it is open to the defendant to apply to set aside a default judgment. In Sun Yongjian and another v Goh Seng Heng [2025] SGHC 47, the Singapore High Court considered an application to set aside a default judgment, setting out the applicable principles.
The Claimants in this case had brought proceedings for fraudulent misrepresentation against the Defendant, Dr Goh, in respect of investments they had made. The originating process and Statement of Claim were served on Dr Goh, but he failed to file the notice of intention to contest or not contest or a defence within the applicable deadlines. The Claimants then successfully obtained a Default Judgment against Dr Goh, following which Dr Goh applied to set aside the Default Judgment.
In reaching its decision, the Court summarised the principles applicable to the setting aside of a regularly obtained default judgment as follows:
- The threshold requirement is for the defendant to establish that he has a prima facie.
- Where a prima facie defence exists, the court will need to exercise its discretion whether to set aside the default judgment. The list of factors would usually include the period of and reason for any delay in applying to set aside, the prejudice that the claimant would suffer if the judgment were to be set aside, and the reason for the defendant allowing judgment to be entered by default.
- The exercise of this discretion involves a balancing exercise such that the longer the delay, the more cogent the merits of the setting-aside application have to be.
Applying the above principles, even though the Court was of the view that Dr Goh might have a prima facie defence against the Claimants’ claim, the Court declined to exercise its discretion to set aside the Default Judgment.
- The Court found that the Default Judgment was regularly obtained as the Claimants had served the originating process and Statement of Claim on Dr Goh in accordance with the order of court for substituted service. There was no irregularity in the process of applying for entry of Default Judgment.
- The Court was of the view that Dr Goh had established some semblance of a prima facie defence, albeit barely.
- However, there was an almost 14-month delay between the entry of the Default Judgment and the filing of the application to set aside the Default Judgment. The Court concluded that Dr Goh’s delay was inordinate and inexcusable. A decision to set aside the Default Judgment would cause prejudice to the Claimants which could not be remedied by an adverse costs order, as Dr Goh was a self-declared bankrupt.
The Claimants were successfully represented by Harish Kumar, Marissa Zhao and Kiran Makwana from the Commercial Litigation Practice.
Disclaimer
Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of member firms with local legal practices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Our Asian network also includes our regional office in China as well as regional desks focused on Brunei, Japan and South Asia. Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local requirements.
The contents of this publication are owned by Rajah & Tann Asia together with each of its member firms and are subject to all relevant protection (including but not limited to copyright protection) under the laws of each of the countries where the member firm operates and, through international treaties, other countries. No part of this publication may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, broadcast (including storage in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently for any purpose save as permitted herein) without the prior written permission of Rajah & Tann Asia or its respective member firms.
Please note also that whilst the information in this publication is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as legal advice or a substitute for specific professional advice for any particular course of action as such information may not suit your specific business and operational requirements. You should seek legal advice for your specific situation. In addition, the information in this publication does not create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on the information in this publication.
