HO REI, JETHRO & Anor v CHU JIAT BOON TIMOTHY

HO REI, JETHRO & Anor v CHU JIAT BOON TIMOTHY

A party seeking the court's approval under O 9 r 9(7) must state the 'essence' of the intended application, i.e. identify the grounds on which relief is sought, but need not present detailed substantive arguments; failure to include grounds in the initial request is not necessarily fatal and the court may invite supplementation or deal with the request summarily; where grounds were otherwise disclosed and the application was necessary, permission to file was granted.

Citation
[2026] SGDC 100
Parties
Claimant: Ho Rei, Jethro; Claimant: Kang Jun Wei, Ronald; Defendant: Chu Jiat Boon Timothy
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
18 March 2026
Case Number
DC/OC 2274/2025
Procedural Posture
Originating Claim (district Court) / Approval to File Interlocutory Application Under O 9 R 9(7) (8) ROC (permission Stage)
Outcome
Permission to file the intended summons to set aside the default judgment granted; costs reserved to the registrar hearing the substantive application
Legal Topics
Single Application Pending Trial (sapt), Permission to File Application Outside SAPT, Setting Aside Default Judgment, Essence Requirement for Permission Letters
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Rules of Court Interlocutory Applications Default Judgment Court Practice Directions Single Application Pending Trial (sapt) Permission to File Application Outside SAPT Setting Aside Default Judgment +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ho Rei, Jethro

Claimant

Kang Jun Wei, Ronald

Claimant

Chu Jiat Boon Timothy

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Claim (district Court) / Approval to File Interlocutory Application Under O 9 R 9(7) (8) ROC (permission Stage)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a request for court approval under O 9 r 9(7)–(8) ROC must set out the grounds (the "essence") of the intended application
  2. 2 Whether merely identifying the type of application suffices for the Essence Requirement
  3. 3 Whether the defendant's Permission Request satisfied O 9 r 9(8)

Ratio Decidendi

A party seeking the court's approval under O 9 r 9(7) must state the 'essence' of the intended application, i.e. identify the grounds on which relief is sought, but need not present detailed substantive arguments; failure to include grounds in the initial request is not necessarily fatal and the court may invite supplementation or deal with the request summarily; where grounds were otherwise disclosed and the application was necessary, permission to file was granted.

Court Disposition

Permission to file the intended summons to set aside the default judgment granted; costs reserved to the registrar hearing the substantive application

Orders

  • Permission granted to the defendant to file the intended summons to set aside the default judgment
  • Costs reserved to the registrar hearing the substantive application