[2022] SGHC 114

In our judgment, V’s account of the respondent’s “emotional blackmail”, including
claiming that if V proceeded against him it would “hurt his mother who was
already very sick”

(c) On 2 October 2020 at around 11.45am, one Chan Lai Yin
(“Chan”), a process server from Allen & Gledhill, visited the Premises
to try to serve a copy of the documents that the Law Society intended to
rely on in the hearing before the DT. The respondent was not present at
the Premises. Instead, an elderly man and woman answered the door and informed Chan that they were the respondent’s parents. They told Chan
that the respondent was “outstationed” [sic], and that they did not know
when he would return to Singapore. The respondent’s mother accepted
the documents but refused to sign the acknowledgement because the
respondent’s father did not allow her to do so.


32 On 18 August 2021 at around 7.30pm, Allen & Gledhill again attempted
to serve the Documents on the respondent at the Premises. The process server,
one Lim Puay Hock (“Lim”), rang the doorbell at the Premises. The door was
opened by an elderly Chinese man who, upon seeing Lim, abruptly slammed
the door shut without saying anything.
In a subsequent affidavit filed on 3 September 2021, Lim confirmed, based on
photographs in Chan’s affidavit, that the elderly Chinese man who slammed the
door shut was the same man Chan had encountered and who had identified
himself to Chan as the respondent’s father.