GUANGHUA SS HOLDINGS LIMITED v LIM YEW CHENG & Anor

Facts

Guanghua SS Holdings Limited obtained summary judgment in Hong Kong on 20 April 2022 against Lim Yew Cheng (D1) and his son on guarantees, ordering D1 to pay USD 7,140,096.20 and both to pay USD 220,620,022.33 plus interest. It then registered the judgment in Singapore in Originating Application No 302 of 2022 under the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act 1959. Two attempts to serve D1 at his registered Gallop Road address failed; his domestic helper said he was not in, and a woman claiming to be his wife said he was in China and she did not know when he would return. An Assistant Registrar then ordered substituted service, by post and email to his Hong Kong lawyers and by post to two Singapore addresses, and service was effected.

In Summons No 3123 of 2022, D1 applied to set aside the registration order and the substituted service order. It emerged from his affidavits that he had been living solely at the China World Hotel in Beijing since 8 February 2020. He argued that the claimant should first have tried to serve him personally in China, that substituted service was an impermissible shortcut around the rules on service abroad, that the claimant failed to make full and frank disclosure, and that service was contrary to Chinese law.

Issues

1. Whether the claimant had to attempt personal service on D1 in China before applying for substituted service
2. Whether a notice of registration may be served by substituted service out of jurisdiction under the Rules of Court 2021
3. Whether the claimant breached its duty of full and frank disclosure in the substituted service application
4. Whether the methods of service were contrary to the law of the People's Republic of China

Holding

The Assistant Registrar dismissed D1's application to set aside the registration order and the substituted service order, and observed that even if a defect in service had been found, the court would have exercised its discretion not to set aside the registration.

Reasoning

The court assessed what the claimant knew, or would have known with proper enquiries, when it applied. Official records gave D1's residence as Gallop Road, where his wife lived; neither his helper nor his wife said he had moved; in China he stayed at a hotel without a known room number; and he had used other addresses in Guangzhou and Beijing. The claimant could reasonably conclude that D1 was constantly moving between Singapore and China, which fell within an exception recognised in Consistel to the rule that service abroad must be tried first. Service under the Sino-Singapore treaty needed a complete address and could take months. The claimant was not required to ask D1 for his room number at their meetings or to infer his residence from annual mooncake deliveries.

Following Janesh s/o Rajkumar v Unknown Person ("CHEFPIERRE") [2022] SGHC 264, which D1 did not dispute, O 8 r 2(1) permits substituted service out of jurisdiction, and O 60 r 7(2) applies that rule to notices of registration. The service within Singapore was justified by the same exception.

The undisclosed matters were not material, as they would not have changed the court's analysis, and in any case there was no suggestion of deliberate suppression.

Applying Humpuss, a method not provided for by foreign law is different from one positively contrary to it, and D1's counsel conceded that no Chinese law prohibited service on his Hong Kong lawyers or at a Singapore address.

Finally, D1 had actual notice and applied within the 21-day period, so he suffered no prejudice, and setting aside would serve no purpose.

From the judgment