Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 29
POSTGRADUATE PRACTICAL LAW COURSE 1999 CIVIL PROCEDURE PAPER Fray, 3 DECEMBER 1999 10.00 AM - 1.00 pM GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS To CANDIDATES A. The Board of Legal Education Postgraduate Practical Law Course Examination Rules 1999 shall apply. On your answer booklet, - write your PLC number only (not your name); - for "Paper", write "Civil Procedure"; and a for "Section", write "NA". Answer FOUR (4) questions in total. QUESTION 1 (ONE) IS COMPULSORY. Answer also THREE questions from Questions 2 - 5. Question 1 carries 40 marks; the rest carry 20 marks each. In answering Question I, enter your answers in the spaces Provided on the question sheet itself. DO_NOT tie it to the answer booklet. Be sure your PLC student number is entered Sor Question I. E. The remaining 3 answers must be written in the answer booklet provided. F. This question paper consists of 15 pages (inclusive of this page). G. This is a 3-hour examination with an additional reading time of 10 minutes. 2A. 2B. -12- © P commenced an action against D on 1.9.99. The action was founded on 2 contract for the sale of books and stationery. The writ together with the full statement of claim were duly served on D. Thereafter, D went to China for a holiday. He failed to enter an appearance within the time "© required by the Rules, Neither d id he take any other step to contest the action: Th the statement of elatin P claimed against D for $61,000.00 being the unpaid price for the goods sold and delivered and sests. P wondered what are the procedural requirements which must be satisfied before the action can be disposed of without a trial, Advise P, (i) What if the statement of claim contained a relief for an injunction and costs but did not have any relief for the price of $61,000.00? Plaintiffs, a company incorporated in Brunei, took out a writ action against the defendants on 1 June 1999, & company incomporated in Singapore, inter alia, for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentations. TOMS orn On 1 March 1999, plaintiffs orally contracted in Singapore to vedl 1S the defendants 1,000 spectacle frames. The plaintiffs alleged in their Statement of Claim that the defendants had represented to them that all 1,000 spectacle frames will be plated with platinum, Tt was for that reason that the plaintiffs were prepared to pay a very high price for that batch of goods compared to the ordinary spectacle frames not plated with platinum. The plaintiffs’ contended that the goods did not conform with the defendants’ representations made. In the Defence, the defendants denied making any oral representation to the Plaintiffs that the spectacle frames would be plated with platinum, In fact, the defendants contended that the plaintiffs’ representative was drunk on.1 March 1999. For this reason, the plaintiffs intend to apply for Fuuther & Better Particulars on the defendants’ assertion of events on 1 March 1999 before they file their Reply. On the other hand, without the plaintiffs’ knowledge, the defendants intend to supply Voluntary Particulars but are uncertain whether their defence fias to be amended. The Reply is pending. ‘The defendants also counterclaimed for damages for late payment of goods. The defendants need the money urgently to pay their outstanding debts lest they face winding-up. proceedings.by creditors. ‘The plaintiffs were incensed when they saw the counterclaim. They are confident that they had made full payment of the goods to the defendants despite the defendants’ breach. Incidentally, the defendants received news that the plaintiffs are running at a loss and they fear having to bear legal costs even if their defende succeeds. SSSR bo a 3A. -13- In the light of the above, advise your clients on the followin (@) if you act for the plaintiffs, what is the procedure to obtain Further & Better Particulars from the defendants. (b) _ifyou act for the defendants, state what needs to be done before filing Voluntary Particulars and the status of such particulars, (©) if you act for the defendants, what you may advise them to do to allay their fears of having to bear legal costs even.if they are successful in their defence and also critically evaluate the chances of succeeding in the application in the light of any recent applicable decision, (@ if you act for the plaintiffs, briefly: state at least 2 other relevant applications you would advise the plaintiffs to take out in order to protect their interests? Judgment in default of defence wes entered without leave despite the fact that it was outside the scope of O19 rm 2-5 of the Rules of Court. Advise the Defendant Your clients, Taylor Fish Pte Ltd have obtained Summary Judgment on 14th July 1999 against four of its directors, Gold Fish, Silver Fish, Bronze Fish and Platinum Fish for US$1,625,000.00 with an order for possession of an immovable property jointly owned by all four Defendants at 14 Aquarium Road, Singapore, Your Judgment includes an order for delivery of a priceless aquarium containing valuation exotic fish which is housed at Gold Fish’s mistress’s home at 26A Seaweed Lane, Singapore. Bronze Fish, you are told is Going some side business under the name and style of Messrs. Fishy Legs selling frog legs to major restaurants. His daily sales are S$10,000 which he receives part in cheque, part cash and part credit card. He also owns two ears which are driven by his wife and salesman for her personal use and for delivery respectively and other assets but your clients do not know the details, neither has he details of the car registration number of where they are located. Platinum Fish’s hobby is collecting expensive paintings on fish. Knowing of the Judgment against him he sold on the 12th July 1999 his paintings to Fishy Lee for $100,000.00 when the actual value is at least three times the sum but delivery is yet to be effected and the paintings continue to be in Platinum's Possession possibly at his home in 22 Mahal Ikan Road, Singapore. He has the money safely put in his account at Fish for Fish Bank under Account No. 1234567. Silver Fish owns a car which is worth at least $250,000.00 but subject to hire purchase. Silver Fish has defaulted in his monthly payments to the finance company. The car is now in the hands of a Receiver, Silver Fish owns shares in Fish Eat All Pte Ltd a teke-out restaurant which is doing well with seafood lovers. But Silver Fish is in the process of transferring his shares

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi