Bayerische Landesbank v Dato Azlan: Amending Summary Judgment for Overstated Sum
Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale sued Dato Azlan bin Hashim in the High Court of Singapore, seeking summary judgment for US$416,049.11 plus interest. After the application but before the hearing, the defendant remitted US$50,000, which was not communicated to the plaintiff's solicitors. The court entered judgment for the full amount. The plaintiff then applied to amend the judgment to reflect the correct amount. The deputy registrar disallowed the application, but the High Court allowed the plaintiff's appeal, finding the error was accidental and the defendant did not oppose the amendment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court allowed Bayerische Landesbank's appeal to amend a summary judgment overstated due to an accidental error, as the defendant did not oppose the amendment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Dato Azlan bin Hashim | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Amendment Allowed | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| MPH Rubin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Fan Kin Ning | William Lai & Alan Wong |
| Alfred Tan | Alfred Tan & Co |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff bankers brought an action against the defendant for US$416,049.11 and interest.
- The plaintiffs applied for summary judgment.
- The defendant remitted US$50,000 to the plaintiffs after the application but before the hearing.
- The plaintiffs' loan recovery department did not communicate the receipt to their solicitors.
- The defendant's counsel did not inform the court of the payment.
- Judgment was entered for the full amount claimed.
- The plaintiffs applied to amend the judgment to reflect the correct amount due.
5. Formal Citations
- Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale v Dato Azlan bin Hashim, Suit 1322/2001/C, RA 150/2002, [2002] SGHC 207
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs applied for summary judgment | |
| Judgment entered for the plaintiff | |
| Deputy registrar disallowed the plaintiffs’ application to amend the judgment | |
| Appeal allowed |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Judgment
- Outcome: The court held that it had the jurisdiction to amend the judgment due to an accidental slip or omission.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Accidental slip or omission
- Clerical error
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Debt Recovery
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Armitage v Parsons | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1908] 2 KB 410 | England and Wales | Cited in support of the court's power to correct accidental slips or omissions in judgments to do substantial justice. |
| Law Ming Hing Richard v Bank Pembangunan Malaysia Bhd | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 MLJ 323 | Malaysia | Followed the principle that courts can amend judgments with accidental slips or omissions rather than setting them aside. |
| Navimprex Centrala Navala v George Moundreas & Co SA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1983] 127 Sol J 392 | England and Wales | Followed for the principle that the court has jurisdiction to correct mistakes in judgments arising from accidental slips or omissions. |
| Philip Securities (Pte) v Yong Tet Miaw | High Court | Yes | [1988] 3 MLJ 61 | Singapore | Followed for the principle that a court has jurisdiction to amend a judgment instead of setting it aside when the judgment was entered for an amount in excess of what was due. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court O 20 r 11 |
| Rules of Court O 19 r 9 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Summary Judgment
- Amendment of Judgment
- Accidental Slip
- Omission
- Clerical Error
15.2 Keywords
- summary judgment
- amendment
- clerical error
- accidental slip
- omission
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Judgments and Orders | 90 |
| Inherent Power of the Court | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Judgments and Orders
- Amendment of Judgments