Ramanathan v Naidu [2007] NSWSC 693

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Ramanathan v Naidu [2007] NSWSC 693

HEARING DATE(S) : 29/06/2007

JUDGMENT DATE : 4 July 2007

JUDGMENT OF : Associate Justice Malpass

DECISION : The Notice of Motion is dismissed. The defendant is to pay the costs of the Notice of Motion.

CATCHWORDS : Setting aside registration of foreign judgment - extension of time for application - sufficient time to defend - fraud

LEGISLATION CITED : Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW)

PARTIES : Theyvendran Ramanatham Radha Krishna Naidu

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 15818/06

COUNSEL : Mr S. B. Docker (Pl) Mr S. Prince (Def)

SOLICITORS : Thomson Playford Lawyers (Pl) SBA Lawyers (Def)

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION : Supreme Court

LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) : 15818/06

LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER : Deputy Registrar Haggett

LOWER COURT DATE OF DECISION : 3/1/2007

- 1 - IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

ASSOCIATE JUSTICE MALPASS

4 JULY 2007

15818/06 Theyvendran Ramanathan v Radha Krishna Naidu

JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: The plaintiff is a resident of Singapore. The defendant resides at Mosman. 2 The plaintiff brought proceedings against the defendant in Singapore (by Writ of Summons together with a Statement of Claim). His claim was for monies owing under a deed of release (the deed). An order for service out of Singapore was made. The Writ of Summons, the order and a Notice of Pre-Trial Conference was served on the defendant. The Writ of Summons required the entry of an appearance within twenty-one days. Service took place on or about 30 January 2006. The defendant did not cause an appearance to be entered within the twenty-one day period. On 24 February 2006, a default judgment was entered for the plaintiff. 3 The plaintiff has brought proceedings in this Court. He ultimately proceeded on an Amended Summons served on 5 February 2007. The plaintiff sought registration of the judgment pursuant to the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) (the Act). 4 The proceedings came before Deputy Registrar Haggett on 31 January 2007. There was no appearance by or on behalf of the defendant. The Registrar made the following orders:- "1. An order that the judgment entered in the High Court of the Republic of Singapore on 24 February 2006 that the defendant pay the plaintiff: a) The sum of $A614,990.19; b) the sum of A$28,435.87 interest up to the date of judgment; and c) costs of S$4592.10, be registered in this court under Part 2 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth). 2. An order that interest accrue at the rate of 6% per annum to the plaintiff from the date of the judgment to the date of satisfaction of the judgment debt, in accordance with Order 42, Rule 12 of the Singapore Rules of Court. 3. An order that the judgment may be enforced to the full extent of the terms that are to be registered. 4. An order that the Court grant interest from the date of the judgment of the Singapore Court to the date of registration of the judgment in this Court in the amount of A$29,418.37. 5. The defendant pay the costs of the summons as agreed or assessed. 6. The Defendant have 14 days from the date of service upon him of the notice of registration to apply to this court under s 7 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth)." 5 These orders were comprised within a Court document headed Judgment/Order. This document was served on the defendant on 5 February 2007. The defendant then had fourteen days to apply to the Court under s7 of the Foreign Judgments Act 1991 (Cth) to have the registration of the judgment set aside. No application was made within that time and no application was made prior to the expiry of that time for an extension of time. 6 However, on 26 February 2007, the defendant filed a Notice of Motion. It seeks the setting aside of what was done by the Registrar. 7 The application is supported by two affidavits sworn by the defendant. One of them concedes service of the Singaporean process on or about 30 January 2006. It contains this explanation for failure to enter an appearance in those proceedings:- "I did not appear in response to the Writ of Summons because on 10 January 2006 I was involved in a major motor vehicle accident in Egypt involving the death of six of my colleagues. As a result of that accident, I sustained a severe fracture of the thoracic spine at the level of T11 and T12, which prevented me from travelling to Singapore to respond to the Writ of Summons."