Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale v Dato Azlan bin Hashim

Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale v Dato Azlan bin Hashim

The High Court has jurisdiction under O 20 r 11 to amend a judgment entered for an amount in excess of that actually due where the excess results from an accidental slip or omission by a party or its advisers and where amendment will not prejudice the other party; para 14 of the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act supports exercising this power to provide just and equitable redress.

Citation
[2002] SGHC 207
Parties
Plaintiff/appellant: Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale; Defendant/respondent: Dato Azlan bin Hashim
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
9 September 2002
Case Number
Suit 1322/2001/C, RA 150/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment and Registrar's Appeal / Appeal to High Court Against Deputy Registrar's Refusal to Amend Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; plaintiff's application to amend the judgment granted
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Amendment of Judgment, Clerical Mistake, Jurisdiction to Amend Judgment, Rules of Court O 20 R 11, Supreme Court of Judicature Act Para 14
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Equity Judgment Enforcement Summary Judgment Amendment of Judgment Clerical Mistake Jurisdiction to Amend Judgment Rules of Court O 20 R 11 +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bayerische Landesbank Girozentrale

Plaintiff/appellant

Dato Azlan bin Hashim

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure Summary Judgment and Registrar's Appeal / Appeal to High Court Against Deputy Registrar's Refusal to Amend Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction under O 20 r 11 to amend a judgment entered for an amount greater than that actually due
  2. 2 Whether an amendment is permissible where the excess arose from an accidental slip or omission by the plaintiff or its advisers
  3. 3 Whether para 14 to the First Schedule of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act supports the exercise of such corrective powers

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court has jurisdiction under O 20 r 11 to amend a judgment entered for an amount in excess of that actually due where the excess results from an accidental slip or omission by a party or its advisers and where amendment will not prejudice the other party; para 14 of the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act supports exercising this power to provide just and equitable redress.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; plaintiff's application to amend the judgment granted

Orders

  • Plaintiff's appeal allowed
  • Judgment amended to reflect the correct amount due by reducing the judgment sum by US$50,000