Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd (In Liquidation) and others v Peter Kwee Seng Chio and others

The liquidators of Laguna National Golf and Country Club Ltd sued its former directors and Laguna Hotel Holdings Pte Ltd in HC/OC 262/2025, alleging that the directors breached their fiduciary duties by causing the company to enter into a sale and purchase agreement with Laguna Hotel on 19 April 2016 for S$130 million. The court stressed that the facts set out were only the claimants' pleaded account, as the action remained heavily contested.

The fourth defendant, Ms Kwee Hui Ling Karen, a bankrupt, did not respond after being served, and default judgment was entered against her on 21 November 2025. It included an award of substitutive compensation, to be assessed, for misapplication of the company's property in the Fresh Lease of the land. The claimants then amended their statement of claim to say that the agreement covered not just the lease but also the right to develop and operate a hotel on the land, which they called the Asset. In HC/SUM 733/2026 they applied to amend the default judgment to refer to the Asset instead of the Fresh Lease. Ms Kwee's private trustee in bankruptcy took no position. After the hearing, and after the court asked for further submissions, the claimants sought permission to withdraw the summons.

1. Whether the claimants should be permitted to withdraw SUM 733 after judgment had been reserved
2. Whether the court should still issue a judgment on the withdrawn application
3. Whether the Rules of Court 2021 expanded the court's power to amend its judgments, including default judgments
4. Whether the proposed amendment to the default judgment should have been allowed

Applying Victory International Holdings Pte Ltd v Borrelli, Cosimo [2024] SGHC 79, a party should generally not be compelled to proceed with a summons against its will. As the trustee in bankruptcy had taken no position, the withdrawal caused no injustice. A judgment was nonetheless issued because the application raised points of general interest on amending judgments under the new rules, and the withdrawal came after judgment had been reserved. The court said the judgment was not a condition of withdrawal and expressed no view on any estoppel in later proceedings.

On the law, the guiding principle is finality: a perfected judgment cannot be substantively revisited, though the court may correct it to give effect to its intention when made, as held in Darsan. Under the 2014 rules the slip rule required an accidental error, while the specific powers to vary default judgments were wider, but the cases did not show them extending to amendments departing from the court's original intention. The 2021 rules have no equivalent provisions, and the court rejected the argument that the general power in O 3 r 2(2) enlarged the power of amendment, following GHP Far East Ltd v NPG Global Pte Ltd [2025] 5 SLR 797 and reading TG Master as dealing only with the source of the power.

On the facts, the amendment did not reflect the court's intention when it entered judgment on the earlier pleading. By widening the misapplied property to include the hotel rights, it would significantly increase the substitutive compensation and impose new liability on a defendant who had defaulted only on the original claim, which would offend procedural fairness. Any prejudice to the claimants arose from their own pleadings, and they could apply to set aside the default judgment and seek a fresh one.

The Assistant Registrar allowed the claimants to withdraw SUM 733, but issued a judgment explaining that, had the summons not been withdrawn, the court would have dismissed it and refused the proposed amendment to the default judgment.