Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Attorney-General

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Woo Bih Li J
• Judgment Date: 05 September 2014
• Neutral Citation: [2014] SGHC 176
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 4 of 2014 (Registrar’s Appeal No 109 of 2014)
• Published date: 12 November 2014
• Year: 2014
• Hearing Date: 14 April 2014,16 June 2014
• Plaintiff Counsel: The plaintiff in person
• Defendant Counsel: Zheng Shaokai and Koo Zhi Xuan (Attorney-General's Chambers)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,striking out,judicial immunity
• Citation: [2014] SGHC 176

Woo Bih Li J: Introduction

This action was the second of two actions brought by Ho Soo Fong (“HSF”) – either in his own name or in the name of Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd (“HPK”) – against the defendant, the Government of the Republic of Singapore (“the Government”), to recover damages for certain judicial acts and orders made. In Suit No [X] (“the First Action”), HSF’s action was to recover damages for judicial acts or orders made in relation to ancillary matters concerning the dissolution of the marriage between HSF and his former spouse. In the present action, HSF commenced proceedings on behalf of HPK, of which HSF was the Managing Director.

The appeal in the present action was made by HPK against the decision of a Senior Assistant Registrar (“the SAR”), who allowed an application by way of Summons No 445 of 2014 for the Statement of Claim (“the SOC”) and the action against the Government to be struck out and dismissed respectively. After hearing arguments, I dismissed the appeal. I was in agreement with the SAR that the claim against the Government did not contain a reasonable cause of action. HPK has since filed an appeal against my decision. I now state the reasons for my decision.

HPK’s claim

In the present action brought by HPK, damages in the sum of $4,797,631.27, interest, and costs¹ were claimed for a number of orders made by judges and judicial officers. These orders were made pursuant to court proceedings commenced as a result of construction disputes between HPK and Revitech Pte Ltd (“Revitech”). HPK was the main contractor employed by Revitech to construct a block of apartments with basement car park and a swimming pool at No 89 Kovan Road, Singapore.² It was HPK’s case that the decisions on the disputes in Suit No 36 of 2006 and Civil Appeal No 74 of 2010 were “bias[ed]” and “unfair”.³

For background information, the following judicial acts and orders formed the subject of the present action: Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd [2007] SGHC 194: This was the first tranche of Suit No 36 of 2006. The High Court was asked to determine whether certain documents formed part of the building contract between the parties. The court’s finding would impact the determination of the scope of the works contracted for. Justice Lai Siu Chiu ruled in favour of Revitech on 13 November 2007. HPK filed an appeal (Civil Appeal No 149 of 2007) but did not file the Record of Appeal in time.⁴ The appeal was hence deemed to have been withdrawn. Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 106: This was the second tranche of Suit No 36 of 2006. HPK proceeded on its substantive claims for (i) outstanding progress payments certified by the architect; (ii) under-valuation of works carried out; and (iii) damages for wrongful termination of the contract. Revitech counterclaimed for liquidated damages for delay in the construction works and cost of rectification of defective works. Lai J delivered judgment on 8 April 2010, granting final judgment to HPK in the sums of $771,630.97 and $10,023.49. Its claim for undervalued works and wrongful termination of the contract were dismissed. Lai J granted final judgment to Revitech in the sum of $414,000 for liquidated damages for HPK’s delay. Lai J also granted several other reliefs. Civil Appeal No 74 of 2010: The Court of Appeal dismissed HPK’s appeal against Lai J’s decision in Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 106. A minor variation (underlined below) was made to Lai J’s order for interlocutory judgment at [135(f)(ii)]:⁵

The defendant was awarded interlocutory judgment against the plaintiff for defective construction of but not limited to (1) the roof and parapet wall; (2) the basement car park; (3) windows, sliding doors, glass balustrades and aluminium trellis; (4) defective marble flooring; (5) external walls; (6) staircases; (7) outdoor shower and (8) exit signages and in respect of all these items, only if the defendant established that it was subject to any legal obligation to complete the said rectifications.

Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd [[2013] SGHC 41: This was a cross-appeal by both HPK and Revitech against an Assistant Registrar’s assessment of damages for part of the interlocutory judgment ordered against HPK. Lai J delivered the judgment on 19 February 2013. Revitech’s appeal was allowed while HPK’s appeal was dismissed. Suit No 36 of 2006 (Assessment of Damages No 60 of 2013): This was the second tranche of an assessment of damages hearing in which Assistant Registrar James Elisha Lee (“AR Lee”) was asked to determine Revitech’s cost of rectifying HPK’s defective construction. HPK did not participate in the proceedings.⁶ On 29 October 2013, AR Lee awarded damages of $1,473,828.48 to Revitech.

HPK’s dissatisfaction with the above...