SERVICE OF ORIGINATING PROCESS & REMOTE WORKING ARRANGEMENTS
In the Singapore High Court decision of Genuine Pte Ltd v HSBC Bank Middle East Ltd, Dubai [2021] SGHC 104, the High Court dealt with the issue of whether there was proper service of a writ of summons by the plaintiff if the defendant was working remotely and no one was physically present in the defendant’s office when the writ was served.
The facts. For the purposes of this blog, the key facts can be summarised thus:
1. On 3 August 2020, the plaintiff commenced the action against the defendant.
2. On 4 August 2020, the plaintiff left the writ of summons at the defendant’s registered address and a memorandum of service was duly filed.
3. The defendant failed to enter an appearance, and the plaintiff obtained a judgment in default of appearance.
4. The defendant applied to set aside the default judgment.
The defendant’s arguments. In support of its setting aside application, the defendant raised the following points:
1. Since the start of the Singapore government’s COVID-19 “Circuit breaker” measures, the defendant had adopted remote working arrangements and no one was physically present in the defendant’s office.
2. The defendant only discovered the service of the writ on 12 September 2020.
3. In adopting the remote working arrangement, it was complying with a circular issued by the Ministry of Manpower which stipulated that remote working arrangements remained the default at the material time.
4. The defendant sought to English decision of Melanie Stanley and London Borough of Tower Hamlets [2020] EWHC 1622 (QB) (“Melanie Stanley”), where a default judgment was set aside because the court papers were served while the country was in “lockdown”.
The High Court’s decision. The High Court disagreed with the defendant’s submissions and held that the default judgment was regularly obtained as the writ was properly served.
1. Melanie Stanley is distinguishable: as the court papers in Melanie Stanley were served at the start of the “lockdown”, “[t]here was simply no way the defendant in Melanie Stanley could have become aware that court papers had been served on it, in time for it to acknowledge service by the applicable deadline.”
2. In contrast, the court papers in this case were served about one and a half months in the Phase Two Re-opening, where “… it had become possible by then for the defendant’s personnel or directors to go to the office. The defendant ought to have made arrangements for at least someone to go to its office, even if not every day, after 19 June 2020 to see if there was anything that needed attending to.”
3. The High Court also highlighted that given that the plaintiff had “threatened to commence action” through its lawyers letter of demand and had rejected the defendant’s explanation of an alleged set-off, there was no reason for the defendant to believe that the plaintiff would hold its hand.
Significance. Genuine Pte Ltd v HSBC Bank Middle East Ltd, Dubai [2021] SGHC 104 makes clear that unless there exist exceptional facts, such as those in Melanie Stanley, companies should ensure that there is someone who returns to the registered office regularly to see if there is anything that requires attending to. Even if the company is working remotely, court papers can still be properly served by leaving them at the company’s registered address.
This publication is not intended to be, nor should it be taken as, legal advice; it is not a substitute for specific legal advice for specific circumstances. You should not take, nor refrain from taking, actions based on this publication. Chancery Law Corporation is not responsible for, and does not accept any responsibility for, any loss or damage that may arise from any reliance based on this publication.