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) |
Citation | [2014] SGHC 176 |
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 claimIn 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:
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 signagesand in respect of all these items, only if the defendant established that it was subject to any legal obligation to complete the said rectifications .
HPK’s dissatisfaction with the above...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Ahq v Ag
...AHQ v Attorney-General [2014] 4 SLR 713 (“AHQ v AG”) in relation to Suit 3/2014, and Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Attorney-General [2014] SGHC 176 (“HPK v AG”) in relation to Suit 4/2014). The Judge found that it was obvious that AHQ and HPK did not have any reasonable cause of action aga......
-
Bulk Trading SA v Pevensey Pte Ltd
...District Sand and Mineral Co Ltd [1938] 1 All ER 649 (refd) GJ Mannix Ltd, Re [1984] 1 NZLR 309 (refd) Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v AG [2014] SGHC 176 (refd) Hondon Development Ltd v Powerise Investments Ltd [2003] HKCA 323 (refd) Hubbard Association of Scientologists International v Ande......
-
Bulk Trading SA v Pevensey Pte Ltd and another
...by its own officer even in proceedings before the High Court and Court of Appeal (see Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Attorney-General [2014] SGHC 176 at [9]). A broad outline of the possible approaches to O 1 r It may be noticed from the foregoing account on the historical development of O ......
-
AHQ v Attorney-General and another appeal
...AHQ v Attorney-General [2014] 4 SLR 713 (“AHQ v AG”) in relation to Suit 3/2014, and Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Attorney-General [2014] SGHC 176 (“HPK v AG”) in relation to Suit 4/2014). The Judge found that it was obvious that AHQ and HPK did not have any reasonable cause of action aga......