Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries Co Pte Ltd v Goh Heng Tee

Facts

Xiamen Tonghin Furniture Industries Co Pte Ltd, a Chinese company, sued its former legal representative, Goh Heng Tee, in the Xiamen Intermediate People's Court in 2019. Goh was represented there and on appeal by a Chinese lawyer, Mr Bai. On 30 October 2023 the Fujian Higher People's Court, at Goh's request, revoked the first judgment and remitted the case for retrial. On 23 November 2023 Mr Bai signed a form confirming his office as the delivery address for Goh. In the retrial, the Xiamen court sent a subpoena, hearing notices and other documents to Mr Bai's office and by post to Goh's address in Singapore, where tracking records showed delivery. Goh did not appear, and on 27 August 2024 judgment was given ordering him to return RMB 11,801,924.58 with interest, plus fees.

The company sued in Singapore in Originating Claim No 40 of 2025 to enforce that judgment and obtained summary judgment from an Assistant Registrar. Goh's only defence was that the judgment was obtained in breach of natural justice because he had no notice of the retrial. He appealed in Registrar's Appeal No 215 of 2025 and, by Summons No 23 of 2026, sought to adduce two new Chinese law opinions, one on the validity of service and one on whether the judgment could be set aside. Kristy Tan J heard both.

Issues

1. Whether the defendant should be permitted to adduce the two new Chinese law expert opinions on appeal
2. Whether the defendant had a bona fide defence that the Chinese judgment was obtained in breach of natural justice for want of notice
3. Whether the order on interest should be varied

Holding

The court allowed the summons in part, admitting the opinion on validity of service but not the opinion on setting aside, and dismissed the registrar's appeal, upholding the summary judgment. It varied the interest order so that interest runs at 4.85% on RMB 11,801,924.58 from 25 October 2019 to the date of payment.

Reasoning

Applying Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 as explained in AnAn Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) [2019] 2 SLR 341, the first opinion was admitted because the Assistant Registrar had relied on provisions of Chinese procedure law that neither side's expert had addressed, so the evidence could not reasonably have been obtained earlier. The second opinion was refused: it supported an unpleaded challenge to finality, Goh had ample warning yet never amended his defence, and the opinion showed no viable route to set aside the judgment within time.

On the appeal, the judge held that notice for natural justice purposes can be shown either by actual notice or, subject to qualifications, by valid service, and that actual notice makes the validity of service unnecessary to decide. Drawing on Paulus Tannos v Heince Tombak Simanjuntak [2020] 2 SLR 1061, she found Goh had actual notice in time. He had himself sought the retrial; Mr Bai signed the delivery confirmation after the appeal ended and was probably still acting on instructions; documents were received at Mr Bai's office, while only a later one was returned; postal records showed delivery to Goh's home; and the documents announced the hearing date and deadlines well before judgment. Goh offered no affidavit from Mr Bai or his household, which told against him. With notice established, his claim of no opportunity to be heard also failed, so there was no triable issue under the test in Ollech David v Horizon Capital Fund [2024] 1 SLR 287.

The Assistant Registrar had not specified an interest rate. As the Loan Prime Rate at the relevant date was undisputed, the court used its power under O 18 r 8(4) of the Rules of Court 2021 to vary the order.

From the judgment