JFE v JFF

The claimant, JFE, is the mother-in-law of the defendant, JFF. In District Court Originating Claim No 1614 of 2024 she sued the defendant for $220,185, said to be the unpaid balance of nine loans made while the defendant was married to her son, Mr Li. The defendant and Mr Li were in contested divorce proceedings in the Family Justice Courts. The defendant admitted only some of the loans.

On 13 May 2025 a Deputy Registrar granted the claimant summary judgment for $175,689, being the $208,189 claimed on four loans less undisputed repayments of $32,500. The defendant filed Registrar's Appeal No 27 of 2025 and, by District Court Summons No 1151 of 2025, applied to adduce further evidence. That evidence was her own bank documents and, after the Riddick undertaking was lifted, parts of a compliance affidavit Mr Li had filed in the divorce, which stated that he had used money from the sale of the matrimonial home to repay the $220,185 the defendant owed his mother. She amended her defence to plead that the whole debt had been repaid. District Judge Chiah Kok Khun heard the appeal.

1. Whether the defendant should be permitted to adduce the further evidence on the registrar's appeal
2. Whether the defendant had shown a bona fide defence raising a triable issue, so that summary judgment should be set aside

On the first issue, the judge noted that the Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 conditions apply in full to pre-hearing evidence and in modified form to later evidence, as explained in COD v COE [2023] SGCA 29. But under Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) [2019] 2 SLR 341, those conditions are only a guide in interlocutory appeals, and under Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette) [2004] 2 SLR(R) 392 a judge hearing a registrar's appeal rehears the matter with an unfettered discretion. The bank documents had been available earlier, but the non-availability requirement was relaxed because they raised possible triable issues about an extra $10,000 repayment and whether one loan funded Mr Li's cryptocurrency trading. Mr Li's affidavit was new, plainly relevant and not challenged on credibility.

On the second issue, the documents showed the sale yielded $815,083.07, and that $620,670 was transferred from Mr Li's account to the claimant's accounts shortly after. Read plainly, Mr Li's affidavit pointed to repayment of the defendant's debt, raising the prospect of double recovery, which the law forbids, citing Lo Kok Jong v Eng Beng [2024] 1 SLR 964. The claimant said the transfers repaid Mr Li's own loans, but Mr Li had filed nothing to explain his statements, and the judge found his silence revealing. Why the money was transferred, and what Mr Li and the claimant agreed, were matters for trial with cross-examination.

The court allowed both the application to adduce further evidence and the registrar's appeal, granting the defendant leave to defend the claim for $208,189. The claimant was ordered to pay costs of $3,000 (inclusive of disbursements), the Deputy Registrar's costs order was set aside, and no separate costs order was made on the summons.