Rigby J:

This was an application by way of Summons-in-Chambers to set aside a final judgment entered by the plaintiffs against the defendant firm in default of appearance. The application itself was adjourned into open Court for argument. At the conclusion of the argument and having read the affidavits filed by both parties, whilst I found nothing to commend in the conduct and behaviour of the defendant firm, I considered as a matter of law that I had no alternative but to allow the application and set aside the judgment obtained in default of appearance. Since I was of the opinion that the matter involved a point of some practical interest and importance I stated that I would give my reasons in writing. I now proceed to do so.

The facts of the matter are fully set out in the affidavit of Mr. Thillaimuthu, Counsel for the plaintiffs. Mr. Ng Ek Teong, for the defendants, did not dispute the veracity of those facts, although he said, of course, that many of the allegations contained therein were not within the knowledge either of himself or of the defendant firm.

The plaintiffs are a Company, duly constituted and incorporated in Indonesia, and have places of business in both Singapore and Penang. The defendants are a Company incorporated in the Federation of Malaya and, according to the Statement of Claim had its principal place of business at No. 144, Beach Street, Penang. From the Statement of Claim it would appear that some time in 1954 the plaintiffs entered into an agreement with the defendants whereby the defendants were to act as their shipping agents on a commission basis. In

May 1956, perhaps in contemplation of the possibility of these very proceedings, the plaintiffs' then Solicitors took the precaution of writing to the Registrar of Companies, Federation of Malaya, requesting full particulars of the defendant Company.

On the 9 May 1956 the Registrar of Companies replied to that letter furnishing full particulars, including the statement that the situation of the registered office of the defendant Company was at 144, Beach Street, Penang. Thereafter the plaintiffs addressed a Notice of Action to the defendant firm at 144, Beach Street, demanding payment of a sum of $116,409 84 allegedly due to them and threatening legal proceedings if the money was not paid within a stipulated period. The Notice of Action was returned with a covering letter, addressed at No. 144, Beach Street, and signed by someone purporting to be the Managing Director of Joo Seang & Co. Ltd. stating:

With reference to our letter Reference No. 463 of 1956, dated the 19 October 1956, we regret to have to return same as it is apparently meant for Messrs. Joo Seang & Co.

When the Notice of Action was again returned to Messrs. Joo Seang & Co. Ltd. at 144, Beach Street, stating that the Notice was, in fact, for that firm, i.e. Messrs. Joo Seang & Co. Ltd., the defendant firm, in subsequent correspondence, denied the existence of any agreement between their Company, or any representative acting on their behalf, and the plaintiff firm.

As a result, on the 20 March 1957 the plaintiff firm took out a Writ of Summons and, on the strength of the information already received from the Registrar of Companies, the Writ was served on the 3 April 1957, at what had been stated to be the Company's registered office at 144, Beach Street.

On the 5 April 1957 the Summons was returned to the plaintiffs' Solicitors with a covering letter reading as follows:

Joo Seang & Co. 144, Beach Street, P O. Box 591, Penang.

Penang 5 April 1957

Dear Sir

We return you herewith the Summons found in our premises, addressed to Messrs. Joo Seang & Co. Ltd as these people are no more at the above address having since removed.

Yours faithfully,

JOO SEANG & CO.

(Signed) (In Chinese characters)

Manager.

On the 8 April 1957 the plaintiffs' Solicitors again wrote to the Registrar of Companies enquiring as to the registered office of the defendant Company and received bac