THU AUNG ZAW v Ku Swee Boon (trading as Norb Creative Studio)

THU AUNG ZAW v Ku Swee Boon (trading as Norb Creative Studio)

The High Court held that the District Court was not functus officio for purposes of curing non-substantive errors; amending the plaintiff from the sole proprietorship to the sole proprietor was a non-substantive correction of nomenclature. Ku established a genuine mistake and that Thu was not misled nor prejudiced...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] SGHC 265
Parties
Applicant/appellant: Thu Aung Zaw; Respondent: Ku Swee Boon (trading as Norb Creative Studio)
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
27 October 2017
Case Number
HC/RAS 23/2017
Procedural Posture
Originating Summons No 325 of 2017; Registrar's Appeal From the State Courts No 23 of 2017 / High Court Grounds of Decision and Judgment on Amendment Application and Related Originating Summons
Outcome
Registrar's Appeal (RAS 23) dismissed; Amendment Application to substitute plaintiff's name allowed; Originating Summons (OS 325) dismissed; summary judgment maintained; no stay of bankruptcy granted
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Setting Aside Judgment, Amendments to Judgments and Pleadings, Functus Officio, Order 20 R 5(3) ROC, Order 20 R 11 ROC, Capacity of Sole Proprietorship to Sue, Abuse of Process, Costs
Source Language
english
Civil Procedure Bankruptcy Law Civil Appeals Summary Judgment Setting Aside Judgment Amendments to Judgments and Pleadings Functus Officio Order 20 R 5(3) ROC +4 more

Source-derived case record

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thu Aung Zaw

Applicant/appellant

Ku Swee Boon (trading as Norb Creative Studio)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Summons No 325 of 2017; Registrar's Appeal From the State Courts No 23 of 2017 / High Court Grounds of Decision and Judgment on Amendment Application and Related Originating Summons

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a court is functus officio after delivery of summary judgment such that it cannot permit amendments to correct party names
  2. 2 Whether amending the plaintiff from a sole proprietorship to the sole proprietor is a non-substantive amendment or a substantive substitution
  3. 3 Whether the requirements of Order 20 r 5(3) ROC (genuine mistake and no misleading/prejudice) are satisfied

Ratio Decidendi

The High Court held that the District Court was not functus officio for purposes of curing non-substantive errors; amending the plaintiff from the sole proprietorship to the sole proprietor was a non-substantive correction of nomenclature. Ku established a genuine mistake and that Thu was not misled nor prejudiced within the meaning of O 20 r 5(3) ROC. Alternatively the error was correctable under O 20 r 11 ROC as an accidental slip. Consequently the Amendment Application was allowed, Thu's appeal (RAS 23) dismissed, and the originating summons (OS 325) seeking to set aside or render void the summary judgment and to stay bankruptcy was dismissed as without merit and an abuse of process.

Court Disposition

Registrar's Appeal (RAS 23) dismissed; Amendment Application to substitute plaintiff's name allowed; Originating Summons (OS 325) dismissed; summary judgment maintained; no stay of bankruptcy granted

Orders

  • Amendment Application allowed: plaintiff name in DC 3647 amended to "Ku Swee Boon (trading as Norb Creative Studio)"
  • Registrar's Appeal No 23 of 2017 dismissed (appeal by Thu against amendment decision)