para
Introduction
Loading…
[2022] SGHC 190
General Division of the High Court of Singapore11 Aug 2022Suit No 858 of 2021 (Registrar’s Appeal No 171 of 2022)
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 2 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“l principles concerning the grant of summary judgment under O 14 of the ROC are well-established. It would suffice for me to adopt the summary in Panircelvan s/o Kaliannan and others v Ee Hoong Liang [2022] SGHC 190 at [10]:”
“e outstanding sum under the US Judgment. The Appellant’s appeal before the Judge below was dismissed. The Judge issued his Grounds of Decision in Panircelvan s/o Kaliannan and others v Ee Hoong Liang [2022] SGHC 190 (“the GD”). The appeal before us seeks to set aside the summary judgment on two substantive grounds. Bot”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
para
Introduction
para
Background Facts
para
Issues on appeal
para
Principles on Summary Judgment
para
Fraud Issue
para
Pleading of fraud
para
Whether the non-disclosure amounted to fraud
para
Whether the non-disclosure is material
para
Whether the fraud is extrinsic or intrinsic
para
(a) Extrinsic fraud refers to fraud taking place outside trial. This includes bribery of a solicitor, counsel, or a witness; collusion with a representative party to the prejudice of beneficial interest; fraud going to the jurisdiction of the court; and perjury during discovery.
para
(b) Intrinsic fraud refers to fraud taking place within trial. This includes false statements made at the trial which were met by counter-statements by the other side, and adjudicated upon by the Court; fraud going to the merits of the judgment; and perjury at trial.
para
(a) The existence of the settlement sum was something that the Defendant knew of at the time of the US Action. The Defendant and his spouse had by then received partial payouts from the Class Action, amounting to $4,945.34. Counsel for the Defendant accepted that the Defendant knew that the Plaintiffs were also part of the Class Action so he would know that they had received some monies.
para
(b) It was also clear from the Defendant’s court documents that he was aware of this. In the Defendant’s Motion in Support of Motion to Dismiss, he said that the NDD assets were liquidated and all monetary proceeds were distributed to the Plaintiffs between March to April 2017. The Defendant further alleged that the Plaintiffs had omitted this fact in their case complaint filing. The Defendant also said that the NDD hotel room units were already liquidated and all monetary proceeds were paid to the plaintiffs since March or April 2017.
para
(c) The Defendant’s position was that he did not know exactly how much the Plaintiffs received in their payouts. But he did know that they had received some payouts. Despite knowing this, the Defendant never raised to the US District Court any complaint that some payouts would have been received by the Plaintiffs.
para
Natural Justice Issue
para
(a) On 19 April 2018, the US District Court directed the Clerk to email a copy of the disclosure orders to the defendant at his Singnet Email Address.
para
(b) From 17 to 19 September 2017, the Defendant exchanged several emails with the US District Court, using his Singnet Email Address, stating that he would not be attending the telephone conference call because he has filed his Motion to Dismiss.
para
(c) On 6th October 2017, the Defendant emailed US District Court, using his Singnet Email Address, and stated that “there was no case for [him] to answer”.
para
Quantum of damages claimed
para
Conclusion
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.