The defendant brought a motion to set aside a default judgment arising from a claim for unpaid gambling credit advanced by a casino.
The motion relied on an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the underlying credit agreement favouring Singapore courts and on a hearsay assertion that the defendant never received the statement of claim served by substituted service.
The court held that a forum selection clause does not render proceedings void and cannot justify setting aside a judgment absent other grounds, particularly where the defendant delayed and produced no evidence of a defence on the merits.
Applying the factors governing motions to set aside default judgment, the court found no credible explanation for the defendant’s delay, no evidence of non‑service, and no arguable defence.
The interests of justice therefore did not favour granting relief.
