Sun Yongjian and another v Goh Seng Heng [2025] SGHC 47

Case Details

• Citation: [2025] SGHC 47
• Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
• Date: 2025-03-21
• Judges: Pang Khang Chau J
• Plaintiff/Applicant: Sun Yongjian and another
• Defendant/Respondent: Goh Seng Heng
• Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders
• Statutes Referenced: None specified
• Cases Cited: [2009] SGHC 44, [2025] SGHC 47
• Judgment Length: 43 pages, 12,806 words

Summary

This case involves a dispute over investments made by the plaintiffs, Mr. Sun Yongjian and Ms. Fu Shanping, in the shares of Aesthetic Medical Partners Pte Ltd (AMP) through an investment company called Liberty Sky Investment Ltd (LSI). The plaintiffs allege that the defendant, Dr. Goh Seng Heng, who was a director and shareholder of AMP, made fraudulent misrepresentations to LSI, which were then communicated to the plaintiffs, inducing them to invest in AMP shares. The court had to determine whether the default judgment obtained by the plaintiffs should be set aside and whether the plaintiffs had established a prima facie defense.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The plaintiffs, Mr. Sun Yongjian and Ms. Fu Shanping, claimed to have each concluded separate share investment agreements with LSI, through which they "indirectly purchased" a total of 30,549 shares in AMP at the price of $450 per share. Prior to the plaintiffs' investments, LSI had purchased 32,049 AMP shares from the defendant, Dr. Goh Seng Heng, at the same price of $450 per share.

In a previous case, Liberty Sky Investments Ltd v Goh Seng Heng and another [2020] 3 SLR 335, the court found that Dr. Goh had made fraudulent misrepresentations to LSI's representatives regarding the likelihood and timing of a trade sale or initial public offering of AMP's shares. As a result, LSI was awarded damages against Dr. Goh. However, the court also found that LSI had divested its beneficial interest in some of the AMP shares to "Chinese investors," which were later identified as the plaintiffs in the present case.

After Dr. Goh was adjudged a bankrupt, the plaintiffs filed proofs of debt with the Official Assignee, claiming damages against Dr. Goh based on the same fraudulent misrepresentations that were established in the previous case. When Dr. Goh disputed the plaintiffs' proofs of debt, the Official Assignee advised the plaintiffs to obtain court judgments in their favor to facilitate the adjudication of the proofs of debt.

What Were the Key Legal Issues?

The key legal issues in this case were:

1. Whether the default judgment obtained by the plaintiffs against Dr. Goh was regularly obtained.
2. Whether Dr. Goh had established a prima facie defense to the plaintiffs' claims.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

On the issue of whether the default judgment was regularly obtained, the court examined the efforts made by the plaintiffs to serve the originating process and statement of claim on Dr. Goh. The court found that the plaintiffs had made various attempts to effect personal service on Dr. Goh, including at his residential address, the address of the Republic of Singapore Yacht Club (where he was a member), and two additional addresses provided by the Official Assignee. The court also noted that the plaintiffs had communicated with Dr. Goh's lawyer, who had declined to accept service.

Regarding the prima facie defense, the court considered the various arguments raised by Dr. Goh, including:

1. That the Court of Appeal had already held in the previous case that Dr. Goh was not liable.
2. That the plaintiffs were not the registered owners of the AMP shares.
3. That the authenticity of the investment agreements was doubtful.
4. That there was a lack of privity of contract between the plaintiffs and Dr. Goh.
5. That there were no direct communications between the plaintiffs and Dr. Goh, and no agency relationship with LSI.
6. That the misrepresentations originated from another individual, Nelson Loh.
7. That the plaintiffs did not rely on Dr. Goh's representations.

The court analyzed each of these arguments and concluded that Dr. Goh had not established a prima facie defense.

What Was the Outcome?

The court dismissed Dr. Goh's appeal against the decision of the assistant registrar to decline to set aside the default judgment. The court found that the default judgment was regularly obtained and that Dr. Goh had not established a prima facie defense to the plaintiffs' claims.

Why Does This Case Matter?

This case is significant for several reasons:

First, it demonstrates the court's approach to setting aside a default judgment, particularly in cases where the defendant has made various attempts to avoid service of the originating process. The court's analysis of the efforts made by the plaintiffs to serve Dr. Goh provides guidance on the steps that must be taken to establish that a default judgment was regularly obtained.

Second, the court's examination of the prima facie defense raised by Dr. Goh highlights the high threshold that a defendant must meet to successfully set aside a default judgment. The court's rejection of Dr. Goh's arguments, despite the complex factual and legal issues involved, underscores the court's commitment to upholding the integrity of the judicial process.

Finally, this case has important implications for the enforcement of judgments, particularly in the context of bankruptcy proceedings. The court's decision to uphold the default judgment against Dr. Goh will facilitate the adjudication of the plaintiffs' proofs of debt and the distribution of assets in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Legislation Referenced

• None specified

Cases Cited

• [2009] SGHC 44
• [2020] 3 SLR 335
• [2020] 1 SLR 606
• [2025] SGHC 47

Source Documents

• Original Judgment (PDF) — Singapore Law Watch
• Archived Copy (PDF) — Litt Law CDN

This article analyses [2025] SGHC 47 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.