Case Details
- Citation: Zhao Feng Guo v Tan Hong Soon t/a Intense Engineering Construction [2003] SGHC 106
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2003-05-06
- Judges: Choo Han Teck J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Zhao Feng Guo
- Defendant/Respondent: Tan Hong Soon t/a Intense Engineering Construction
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Judgments and orders, Damages — Measure of damages, Tort — Misrepresentation
- Statutes Referenced: None specified
- Cases Cited: [1991] SLR 824, [2003] SGHC 106
- Judgment Length: 3 pages, 1,421 words
Summary
This case involves a dispute between an employee, Zhao Feng Guo, and his employer, Tan Hong Soon t/a Intense Engineering Construction, over a workplace accident. The plaintiff, Zhao Feng Guo, was employed as an engineer by the defendant company and was injured in an accident while performing his duties. Zhao Feng Guo subsequently filed a lawsuit against the defendant company, and the court entered an interlocutory judgment in his favor when the defendant failed to appear. The defendant later applied to set aside the interlocutory judgment, arguing that the plaintiff had misrepresented his qualifications and that the service of the writ of summons was irregular. The court dismissed the defendant's application, finding that the plaintiff's alleged misrepresentation was not relevant to the tort claim and that the irregularity in service was minor and did not warrant setting aside the judgment.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The defendant, Tan Hong Soon t/a Intense Engineering Construction, was a company. The plaintiff, Zhao Feng Guo, was employed as an engineer by the defendant and was assigned various duties, including those of a supervising engineer in the construction of a porch roof for a motorcar showroom. On 15 January 2001, the plaintiff was injured in an accident involving a power cutter while performing his duties.
On 31 July 2001, the plaintiff issued a writ of summons against the defendant. The writ was served on the defendant on 19 September 2001, and an interlocutory judgment in default of appearance was entered on behalf of the plaintiff on 2 October 2001. The case then proceeded to a hearing for the assessment of damages, which was scheduled for 4 March 2003.
However, three days before the assessment hearing, the defendant applied to set aside the interlocutory judgment. The defendant argued that it had not initially defended the action because it did not have sufficient grounds to do so, but after about a year, it managed to obtain evidence that the plaintiff had been deported six days before he issued the writ. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff had misled the immigration authorities by declaring that he had a Bachelor's degree in Economics Management when he did not, and had also represented that he had an engineering degree when he did not.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
- Whether the plaintiff's alleged misrepresentation of his qualifications amounted to an illegality that warranted setting aside the interlocutory judgment.
- Whether the alleged irregularity in the service of the writ of summons, where the writ was found on the floor beneath the defendant's door instead of being pasted on the door, justified setting aside the interlocutory judgment.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court addressed the defendant's two grounds for setting aside the interlocutory judgment.
Regarding the first ground, the court acknowledged that the defendant had claimed the plaintiff had misrepresented his qualifications, but noted that this allegation had not been proven. The court held that even if the plaintiff had misrepresented his qualifications, this would be too remote from the causation of the tort and would only be relevant to a contractual claim, which was a separate matter. The court relied on the principle established in Ooi Han Sun & Anor v Bee Hua Meng [1991] SLR 824, which held that the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio (no cause of action arises from a dishonest act) applies in contract but not in tort, at least not in terms of liability for the tortious act.
Regarding the second ground, the court dismissed the defendant's argument that the judgment was irregular due to the improper service of the writ of summons. The court noted that it was not disputed that the writ was found on the defendant's doorstep, and even if the service clerk had thrown it there instead of pasting it, this was a minor irregularity that the court would not give any weight to. The court also observed that this objection could and should have been made more than a year ago, and therefore it was too late to raise it at this stage.
What Was the Outcome?
The court dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld the interlocutory judgment in favor of the plaintiff. The court found that neither of the defendant's grounds for setting aside the judgment were valid or justified the setting aside of the judgment obtained on 2 October 2001.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for a few reasons:
Firstly, it reinforces the principle that the maxim ex turpi causa non oritur actio (no cause of action arises from a dishonest act) applies in contract but not in tort, at least not in terms of liability for the tortious act. The court made it clear that the plaintiff's alleged misrepresentation of his qualifications, even if true, would not be relevant to the tort claim and would only be relevant to a separate contractual claim.
Secondly, the case highlights the high bar that must be met to set aside a default judgment. The court emphasized that the defendant's objections to the service of the writ were minor and should have been raised much earlier, and that it was too late to do so at this stage of the proceedings.
Finally, the case underscores the importance of diligence and promptness in legal proceedings. The defendant's delay in raising its objections and obtaining evidence ultimately proved fatal to its application to set aside the interlocutory judgment.
Legislation Referenced
- None specified
Cases Cited
- [1991] SLR 824 - Ooi Han Sun & Anor v Bee Hua Meng
- [2003] SGHC 106 - Zhao Feng Guo v Tan Hong Soon t/a Intense Engineering Construction
Source Documents
This article analyses [2003] SGHC 106 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.