HO REI, JETHRO & Anor v CHU JIAT BOON TIMOTHY

Facts

Mr Ho Rei, Jethro and Mr Kang Jun Wei sued Mr Chu Jiat Boon Timothy in District Court Originating Claim No 2274 of 2025 for breach of contract. They said he had failed to pay them the profits and principal due on money they had entrusted to him for investment. Substituted service was ordered, and when he did not enter an appearance, default judgment was entered on 31 December 2025 for $61,990.00 to Mr Ho and $62,669.00 to Mr Kang, with interest and costs.

Under the Rules of Court 2021, applications outside the single application pending trial need the court's approval, sought by a letter or request that sets out the essence of the intended application and why it is needed at that stage. On 14 January 2026 the defendant filed such a request to apply to set aside the default judgment, but it stated only the type of application. The claimants objected that it did not give the grounds. The defendant's solicitors had, however, told them by email that he would rely on a prima facie defence. Deputy Registrar Don Ho heard the request.

Issues

1. Whether a request for approval under O 9 r 9(8) must state the grounds of the intended application
2. Whether approval should be granted for the defendant to apply to set aside the default judgment

Holding

The court held that a request for approval must identify the grounds of the intended application, and that naming only the type of application is not enough. It nonetheless allowed the defendant's request to file the setting-aside application and reserved costs to the registrar hearing that application.

Reasoning

Read in its ordinary sense, the word essence covers the basis of the relief sought as well as the relief itself. A purposive reading supported this, since the regime aims to limit piecemeal interlocutory applications. Knowing the grounds lets the court judge whether the application is needed at that stage, lets the other side respond, and helps filter out frivolous applications early. Only the grounds are required, not detailed arguments, so this does not mean arguing the merits in advance, consistent with Hertel Singapore Pte Ltd v Cheng Swee Guan. The court rejected a separate rule for default-judgment applications, which would create a two-track procedure. Setting out the essence and explaining why the application is necessary are distinct requirements, and both must be met. Leaving out the grounds is not fatal, however, because the court can ask the party to supply them instead of dismissing the request.

On the facts, the grounds had been given in the solicitors' email, which was placed before the court, so everyone knew them. The claimants did not dispute that the application was necessary now. It was the defendant's only way to be heard on the merits and should be brought promptly. The court added that, outside abuse of process or a hopeless application, a claimant will find it hard to resist approval for an application to set aside a default judgment.

From the judgment