On contentious cross-border combat, commencing claims, and conveying cause papers: part 2.¹

On contentious cross-border combat, commencing claims, and conveying cause papers: part 2.¹

On contentious cross-border combat, commencing claims, and conveying cause papers: part 2.¹

Published on:

15 Sept 2025

3

min read

#notlegaladvice
#notlegaladvice
#disputes
#disputes
#law
#notlegaladvice
#notlegaladvice

This article is part of a series. View related content below:

This article is part of a series. View related content below:

This article is part of a series. View related content below:

Betty Curac; https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-and-woman-running-outdoors-3287362/.

On contentious cross-border combat, commencing claims, and conveying cause papers: part 2.¹

So you're suing someone (which makes you the "claimant", and the other party the "defendant"). You couldn't find them to serve the Court papers on them personally,² so you obtained a Court order allowing you to effect "substituted" service.³

And then the defendant emerges, and claims that:
- they were not in Singapore at the time when you started the Court proceedings;
- meaning you shouldn't have applied for substituted service;
- instead, you should have first applied for permission to serve the Court papers out of Singapore; and
- you're now back to square one and have to start the service process all over again.

What next?

--

First, I acknowledge that it is tremendously frustrating to be the claimant in this situation.

Especially since claimants often find themselves in this situation through no fault of their own. As a general rule, even if you did not know - at the time when you commenced the lawsuit - that the defendant was not in Singapore, you don't get to bypass the requirement to first apply for permission to serve the papers outside of Singapore.⁴

Which means that as a claimant, if you suspect that that the defendant is not in Singapore, but you can't say for sure, you probably still have no choice⁵ but to:

(i) file the lawsuit;
(ii) attempt personal service unsuccessfully; and
(iii) only then, apply for permission to effect substituted service...

...all the while knowing that the defendant might only emerge after step (iii) to claim that they are not located in Singapore, and potentially wasting your time and effort.

And I know it's frustrating because I've been on both sides at various times in the past.

--

Second, before suing, don't just focus on the legal merits. Consider and bottom out practical considerations such as:⁶

(i) is the defendant in Singapore, and if so, how can I find them in Singapore?
(ii) if not, in which country are they located, and how can I find them there?
(iii) how can I contact them? And how can I convince the Court that they are contactable via this medium?
(iv) where are the defendant's assets located?
(v) heck, does the defendant even have assets?
(vi) can I wind up / bankrupt the defendant?

And the list goes on.

A lawyer who focuses only on the legal merits of your claim does you a disservice.

--

Third, there are very few straightforward lawsuits.

There are even fewer straightforward lawsuits with a cross-border element.

So before commencing a claim, make sure that you're mentally prepared, appropriately resourced, and sufficiently budgeted. After all, the last thing you want is to have to pull out because you run out of resources halfway, and before you have anything to show for your time, energy, and funds.

--

If you're looking to bring a claim with a cross-border element, all the best.⁷ And, obviously, find a good lawyer.

Disclaimer:

The content of this article is intended for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

Footnotes:
Footnotes:

¹ Part 1: https://www.linkedin.com/posts/khelvin-xu_footnotes-law-disputes-activity-7358709225612566528-fCNQ/

² Which you had to do under the applicable Court rules.

³ Via email / WhatsApp / slipping the papers under their front door / etc - see part 1 for more examples.

⁴ There does not appear to be any legal authority for the proposition that if a claimant did not know that a defendant was out of the jurisdiction, then the order for substituted service of an originating claim should remain in place even though the defendant has shown that he was not in Singapore when the originating claim was issued.

In fact, such a legal position would ironically lead to a perverse result: claimants would be incentivised to willfully close their eyes to any information that suggests that the defendant was no longer in Singapore, just so that any order for substituted service would stand, and pave the way for them to obtain default judgment.

⁵ But hey, I might be wrong. DM me if you have better ideas that you're prepared to share.

⁶ Not an exhaustive list, naturally.

⁷ Unless I happen to be the lawyer resisting your claim - in which case, "may thy knife chip and shatter".

Never miss a post

Never miss a post
Never miss a post
Share It On: