Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHCR 37
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-11-21
- Judges: AR Perry Peh
- Plaintiff/Applicant: GHP Far East Ltd
- Defendant/Respondent: NPG Global Pte Ltd and another
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Conferences (pre-trial)
- Statutes Referenced: Rules of Court 2021
- Cases Cited: [2023] SGMC 39, [2024] SGHC 65, [2025] SGCA 32, [2025] SGHCR 37, [2025] SGHCR 9
- Judgment Length: 35 pages, 11,567 words
Summary
This case concerns an application by the plaintiff, GHP Far East Ltd, for judgment to be entered against the second defendant, Chia Po Li, and for Chia's counterclaims to be dismissed. GHP brought this application under Order 9 rules 4(1) and 4(2) of the Rules of Court 2021, on the basis that Chia had absented herself without valid reason from several pre-trial Registrar's Case Conferences (RCCs) in the underlying proceedings.
The High Court ultimately dismissed GHP's application, finding that by the time the application was heard, Chia had attended a subsequent RCC and was no longer "absent" for the purposes of the court's discretion under Order 9 rules 4(1) and 4(2). The court also held that even if Chia's prior absences could have enlivened the court's discretion, her subsequent attendance and conduct militated against the court exercising that discretion to enter judgment against her.
This judgment provides important guidance on the scope and application of the court's powers under Order 9 rules 4(1) and 4(2) to dismiss an action or enter judgment against an absent party. It clarifies that the court's discretion is only enlivened where the party sought to be penalized was absent from the most recent RCC convened in the matter.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
In the underlying proceedings (Originating Claim No. 379 of 2023), the plaintiff GHP Far East Ltd brought claims against the first defendant, NPG Global Pte Ltd, and the second defendant, Chia Po Li, in relation to a profit-sharing agreement for the supply of medical products. GHP alleged that Chia, who is a director and 90% shareholder of NPG, had made secret profits.
GHP had previously obtained judgment against NPG and dismissal of NPG's counterclaim under Order 9 rules 4(1) and 4(2) of the Rules of Court 2021, as NPG had failed to be represented at several RCCs after its solicitors withdrew. In the present application (Summons No. 1663 of 2025), GHP sought similar relief against Chia, citing her absences from three prior RCCs without valid reason.
Specifically, GHP highlighted that Chia had failed to attend the RCCs scheduled for 17 April 2025 and 15 May 2025 without any explanation. For the 17 April 2025 RCC, Chia had emailed the court registry the night before requesting an adjournment due to a medical condition, but the medical certificate provided did not comply with the requirements in the Supreme Court Practice Directions. Chia was also absent from the RCC on 26 June 2025, again citing a medical condition, but the medical certificate was found to be deficient.
After GHP filed the present application, Chia did attend a subsequent RCC on 10 July 2025 and was permitted to file written submissions to contest GHP's application.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key issues for the court's determination were:
1. Whether the court's discretion under Order 9 rules 4(1) and 4(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 should be exercised to grant judgment in favor of GHP and dismiss Chia's counterclaim, in light of Chia's absences from the prior RCCs.
2. If the court was minded to grant the relief sought by GHP, whether the terms of the prior judgment obtained by GHP against the first defendant, NPG, should be varied to make NPG and Chia jointly and severally liable.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
On the first issue, the court acknowledged that Chia's prior absences from the RCCs, without valid reason, had resulted in unnecessary time and costs being incurred to GHP's prejudice. However, the court found that by the time GHP's application was heard, Chia had attended the subsequent RCC on 10 July 2025 and was therefore no longer "absent" for the purposes of the court's discretion under Order 9 rules 4(1) and 4(2).
The court held that the words "the case conference" in those rules refer to the most recent RCC convened in the matter at the time the court is invited to exercise its discretion. As Chia had attended the 10 July 2025 RCC, the court's discretion to dismiss the action or enter judgment was not enlivened.
The court further noted that even if it had taken the view that Chia's prior absences could have enlivened the court's discretion, Chia's subsequent attendance and conduct at the 10 July 2025 RCC were factors that would have militated against the court exercising its discretion to grant the relief sought by GHP.
On the second issue, as the court dismissed GHP's application, it did not need to consider whether the terms of the prior judgment against NPG should be varied.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed GHP's application under Order 9 rules 4(1) and 4(2). However, the court ordered Chia to pay the costs of the application and the costs of a previous RCC that had been reserved in GHP's favor.
The key practical effect of this judgment is that GHP was not able to obtain judgment against Chia or have her counterclaim dismissed on the basis of her prior absences from RCCs. The proceedings will continue between the parties in the underlying Originating Claim No. 379 of 2023.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This judgment provides important guidance on the scope and application of the court's powers under Order 9 rules 4(1) and 4(2) of the Rules of Court 2021. It clarifies that the court's discretion to dismiss an action or enter judgment against an absent party is only enlivened where that party was absent from the most recent case conference convened in the matter.
The decision highlights that the court will not automatically exercise its discretion under these rules, even where a party has been absent from prior case conferences without valid reason. The court will consider the party's overall conduct, including any subsequent attendance and participation, in deciding whether to invoke the harsh consequences of dismissal or default judgment.
This judgment is a useful precedent for practitioners to understand the limits of the court's powers under Order 9 rules 4(1) and 4(2), and the factors the court will consider in exercising its discretion. It serves as a reminder that parties, even if self-represented, must still comply with procedural requirements and engage with the court process, or risk facing adverse consequences.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021
Cases Cited
- [2023] SGMC 39
- [2024] SGHC 65
- [2025] SGCA 32
- [2025] SGHCR 37
- [2025] SGHCR 9
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHCR 37 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.