Guanghua SS Holdings Ltd v Lim Yew Cheng: Setting Aside Registration of Foreign Judgment & Substituted Service
In Guanghua SS Holdings Limited v Lim Yew Cheng and Lin Minghan, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore dismissed Lim Yew Cheng's application to set aside the registration of a Hong Kong judgment and the order for substituted service. The court found that the claimant, Guanghua SS Holdings Limited, was justified in seeking substituted service, as Lim Yew Cheng appeared to be constantly moving between Singapore and the PRC, making personal service impractical. The court also found no breach of the duty of full and frank disclosure and no prejudice to Lim Yew Cheng.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismisses application to set aside registration of Hong Kong judgment and substituted service, finding no prejudice to defendant.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guanghua SS Holdings Limited | Claimant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Lim Yew Cheng | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Lin Minghan | Defendant | Individual | Absent and unrepresented | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Desmond Chong | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Claimant obtained judgment in Hong Kong against the Defendants.
- Claimant sought to register the Hong Kong judgment in Singapore.
- Claimant obtained an order for substituted service on D1.
- D1 applied to set aside the registration order and the substituted service order.
- D1 argued that the Claimant should have attempted personal service in the PRC first.
- D1 argued that the substituted service order circumvented the rules for service out of jurisdiction.
- D1 argued that the Claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure.
5. Formal Citations
- Guanghua SS Holdings Ltd v Lim Yew Cheng and another, Originating Application No 302 of 2022 (Summons No 3123 of 2022), [2023] SGHCR 7
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lim Yew Cheng began residing in China World Hotel in Beijing. | |
| Action No 1972 of 2020 (HK Suit) filed in Hong Kong. | |
| Claimant applied for summary judgment against the Defendants in Hong Kong Suit. | |
| Hong Kong court delivered the HK Judgment and granted summary judgment in favour of the Claimant. | |
| Claimant filed Originating Application No 302 of 2022 to register the HK Judgment in Singapore. | |
| Assistant Registrar granted Originating Application No 302 of 2022. | |
| Notice of registration for D2 was issued. | |
| Claimant made first attempt to serve the Registration Order and D2 notice of registration on D2. | |
| Notice of Registration for D1 was dated. | |
| Claimant made first attempt to serve the Registration Order and the Notice of Registration on D1. | |
| Claimant filed Summons No 2718 of 2022 and Summons No 2727 of 2022 to serve the Notices of Registration on D2 and D1 respectively. | |
| Claimant requested permission to withdraw Summons No 2718 of 2022. | |
| Hearing for both Summons No 2718 of 2022 and Summons No 2727 of 2022 was fixed. | |
| Assistant Registrar granted the Claimant permission to withdraw Summons No 2718 of 2022 and granted the application in Summons No 2727 of 2022. | |
| Claimant served the Registration Order, the Substituted Service Order, and the Notice of Registration on D1 by registered post and by email to Sidley Austin HK. | |
| D1 filed Summons No 3123 of 2022 to set aside the Registration Order. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Grounds of decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Substituted Service Out of Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The court held that the substituted service order was validly made, as personal service was impractical.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Impracticality of personal service
- Circumvention of service rules
- Full and frank disclosure
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 3 SLR(R) 665
- [2022] SGHC 264
- Validity of Service under PRC Law
- Outcome: The court held that the notice of registration was validly served, as the methods of service were not contrary to PRC law.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 4 SLR 625
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 856
8. Remedies Sought
- Setting aside the Registration Order
- Setting aside the Substituted Service Order
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Consistel Pte Ltd and another v Farooq Nasir and another | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 665 | Singapore | Cited for the default rule that a plaintiff must first seek leave to serve an originating process on a defendant out of jurisdiction before resorting to substituted service. |
| Humpuss Sea Transport Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) v PT Humpuss Intermoda Transportasi TBK and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 625 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a manner of service not specifically provided for by foreign law is not contrary to the law of the foreign jurisdiction. |
| Petroval SA v Stainby Overseas Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 856 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that substituted service out of jurisdiction is permissible where it is impracticable to serve a document personally on a defendant situated out of Singapore. |
| Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person (“CHEFPIERRE”) | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 264 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that substituted service out of jurisdiction is permissible under the Rules of Court 2021. |
| Burgundy Global Exploration Corp v Transocean Offshore International Ventures Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 381 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that substituted service should not be effected within one jurisdiction as a shortcut to serve documents on a defendant who resided in another jurisdiction. |
| Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng Huwah (trading as Sin Kwang Wah) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 786 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a mere failure to provide full and frank disclosure of all material facts does not warrant the setting aside of the order made in the application without notice. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the duty to give full and frank disclosure is not so strict that even a minor breach would be a basis to set aside an ex parte injunction. |
| Madihill Development Sdn Bhd and another v Sinesinga Sdn Bhd (transferee to part of the assets of United Merchant Finance Bhd) | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 169 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where there was no undue prejudice occasioned to the judgment debtor by the registration of a foreign judgment despite a technical fault or defect, a court should be slow to set aside the registration of the judgment. |
| Cecil and others v Bayat and others | English Court | Yes | [2011] 1 WLR 3086 | England | Cited for the proposition that substituted service was the exception rather than the norm. |
| Knauf UK GmbH v British Gypsum Ltd and another | English Court | Yes | [2002] 1 WLR 907 | England | Cited for the proposition that substituted service was the exception rather than the norm. |
| Marashen Ltd v Kenvett Ltd (Ivanchenko, third party) | English Court | Yes | [2018] 1 WLR 288 | England | Cited for the proposition that substituted service was the exception rather than the norm. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 3 r 2(8) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 60 r 9 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 8 r 2(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 60 r 7(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 7 r 7 of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 8 r 2(6) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 60 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 60 r 7(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 7 r 1(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 7 r 1(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 | Singapore |
| s 5(1)(c) of Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Substituted service
- Registration of foreign judgment
- Service out of jurisdiction
- Full and frank disclosure
- Impracticality
- Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act
- Rules of Court 2021
- Sino-Singapore Treaty
15.2 Keywords
- Substituted service
- Foreign judgment
- Singapore
- Hong Kong
- China
- Rules of Court
- Registration
- Setting aside
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Enforcement of Foreign Judgments | 90 |
| Civil Procedure | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Private International Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Conflict of Laws
- International Law