KS Oriental Trading Pte Ltd v Defmat Aerospace Pte Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeWarren Khoo L H J
Judgment Date12 March 1996
Neutral Citation[1996] SGHC 41
Citation[1996] SGHC 41
Defendant CounselChan Hian Young and Leonard Goh (Allen & Gledhill)
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselBevin Netto and Magdalin Netto (Cheong & Cheong)
Date12 March 1996
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 1043 of
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject MatterImpecuniosity of claimant,Relative strengths of parties' respective cases,Whether other factors to also be considered,Costs,Security,Civil Procedure

Cur Adv Vult

This is an application by the respondents for security for costs in a pending arbitration. The claim against the respondents is for the sum of US$1.46m, the balance of the price of four helicopters sold by the claimants to the respondents. The facts are not absolutely clear, and there is a risk that any statement about any material matters is liable to be contradicted. The affidavits filed by the respondents in support of their application are rather sketchy, and are not very specific in what they say, although a large amount of documents are annexed. At the risk of being contradicted, I take the facts largely as recounted in the affidavit filed by the claimants.

The contract was entered into on 14 December 1992.
It provided for the sale by the claimants to the respondents of the four helicopters, of Russian origin, at the price of $3.46m f o b Russian port (all sums herein are in US dollars). The contract provided for the payment of an initial sum of $2m by letters of credit, the balance of $1.46m to be paid as to half of it on the issue of a flying test certificate and the balance within 21 days thereafter. It is not disputed that the initial sum of $2m was paid, apparently between signing of contract and delivery. The goods were delivered to Vientiane, Laos in the early part of 1993. According to the claimants, although inspection and tests were duly carried out according to the contract, the respondents neglected to pay the balance of $l.46m. The claimants filed their claim in the arbitration on 19 November 1993. In their defence filed on 20 December 1993, the respondents resisted the claim on the ground that the helicopters did not conform to the description in the contract; that they were not reasonably fit for their purpose and that the flying test certificate was not in accordance with the contract. However, on 29 September 1994, the respondents amended their defence and included an allegation that the amount claimed had been paid on 21 July 1993.

In the affidavit of evidence in chief of Mr Chang, a director of the respondents, it is alleged that the defects were discovered and complaints made to the claimants in April 1993 and there are allegations of matters giving rise to suspicion on the part of the respondents as to the bona fides of the documents issued about the helicopters, including the flying certificate.
The thrust of the affidavit is that the defects were never rectified. Nothing is said about the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v Puay Kim Seng and Another
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 13 January 1999
    ...2 QB 587 (refd) Kohn v Rinson & Stafford (Brod) Ltd [1948] 1 KB 327 (refd) K S Oriental Trading Pte Ltd v Defmat Aerospace Pte Ltd [1996] 1 SLR (R) 448; [1996] 2 SLR 606 (refd) Omar Ali bin Mohd v Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdulkadir Alhadad [1995] 2 SLR (R) 407; [1995] 3 SLR 388 (refd) Porzela......
  • Narayanan Kolanji v Jlion Marine Construction & Engrg Pte Ltd and another
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 30 August 2022
    ...Security will also not be ordered merely because the plaintiff is impecunious: K S Oriental Trading Pte Ltd v Defmat Aerospace Pte Ltd [1996] 1 SLR(R) 448 (“K S Oriental Trading”) at [4]. It bears noting that courts will be slow in ordering security against an impecunious plaintiff especial......
  • Fibresteel Industries Pte Ltd v Radovic Dragoslav
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 20 September 2007
    ...as ordered and to allow the order to remain would in fact stifle its claim. 22 In KS Oriental Trading Pte Ltd v Defmat Aerospace Pte Ltd [1996] 2 SLR 606, there was a winding-up petition against the claimant company on the ground that it was unable to pay its debts. Nevertheless, Warren Kho......
  • Bilia AB v Te Pte Ltd and Others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 17 April 1999
    ...Sembawang Engineering Pte Ltd v Priser Asia Engineering Pte Ltd [1992] 2 SLR 806; KS Oriental Trading Pte Ltd v Defmat Aerospace Pte Ltd [1996] 2 SLR 606. Where the condition as regards inability to pay costs is satisfied s 388(1) gives the court a discretion to make an order for sufficient......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT