Vincent Ng J:

Preamble

[1] On 14 June 2002 the learned senior assistant registrar (SAR) allowed the preliminary objections raised by the sixth defendant's solicitor and struck off with costs the plaintiff's application for summary judgment in encl 8.

[2] Hence this appeal (encl 61) before me today.

[3] Without going into much detail, suffice to say, the plaintiff's claim against the sixth defendant was for the return of US$617,756.37, being monies received from the plaintiff's customer and wrongfully retained by the sixth defendant and a sum of US$501.37 for goods sold and delivered.

[4] Although at the onset, the sixth defendant raised seven (7) preliminary objections to defeat the plaintiff's application for summary judgment, for the purposes of this appeal, only five (5) of them merit discussion, the total effect of which, in my opinion justified the learned SAR's decision.

The First Preliminary Objection - Delay

[5] The following facts are undisputed. The plaintiff commenced this action against the defendants on 31 December 1998. The sixth defendant entered their appearance and filed their defence by 4 March 1999. The plaintiff only took out their summary judgment application