Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong & Another and other actions (3)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 30 May 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 139
• Docket Number: Suits Nos 1116, 2523, 2524 and in Chambers No 2258 of 1997)
• Date: 30 May 1997
• Year: 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Nishith Shetty (Wong Partnership),Davinder Singh and Hri Kumar (Drew & Napier),Tan Kok Quan (Lee & Lee),Cheah Kok Khun (Wee Swee Teow & Co),Harry Elias (Harry Elias & Partners),Ashok Kumar (Allen & Gledhill),Daniel John and Michell Jeganathan (John & Tan)
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 139
• Defendant Counsel: Peter Cuthbert Low and Loo Ngan Chor (Peter Low Seong Tang & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Discharge,Credit and Security,Risk of incurring several sets of costs,Urgent hearing dates,Parties,Injunctions,Trial,Costs,Civil Procedure,Alternatives,Application by second defendant for directions pertaining to substantive trial of issues regarding ownership of assets subject to Mareva injunction,O 4 r 1(1) Rules of Court 1996,Whether application to discharge premature,Consolidation of suits,Unavoidable exposure,Whether application premature,Principles applicable,Whether request should be acceded to,Mareva injunction,Receivership,Application to discharge appointment of receiver,Discharge of receiver,Whether partial consolidation warranted,Motion (interlocutory),Whether application should be heard in open court

In this series of actions, the first defendant was sued for substantial damages in connection with a series of slander and libel. The plaintiffs obtained a combined order for a worldwide Mareva injunction against both defendants. Subsequently, a receiver was appointed in aid of the Mareva injunction. The second defendant was not alleged to be a tortfeasor but she was joined as the second defendant because the plaintiffs alleged that the property No 75 Hua Guan Avenue, Singapore (the property) and other assets to be identified after the discovery processes were in fact and in law held by her on trust for the first defendant, her husband. The plaintiffs asserted that the first defendant had solely paid for the property, had dealt with it as if he was the sole beneficial owner and had expressly claimed in December last year and January this year that the property was his. She, being a traditional Chinese housewife relied on the presumption of advancement and probably might assert another claim to the property. She also claimed that all her other assets belonged to her, their two daughters and a son.

On 27 March 1997 the second defendant filed a notice for further directions under SIC No 2258/97. She sought the following orders:

(1) that this application be heard in open court;

(2) that, as the defendant Mdm Teo Siew Har has been joined as a defendant in these actions and is subject to an interlocutory Mareva injunction (together with the appointment of a receiver of her assets) ordered on the basis of allegations by the plaintiffs that she holds assets as her husband`s nominee or bare trustee , the following directions be given for the substantive trial and determination of the issues whether as the plaintiffs contend, any (and if so which) of her assets are held by her as such nominee or bare trustee;

(3) that these issues shall be tried and determined as between the plaintiffs in all 12 suits here collectively on the one part, and Mdm Teo Siew Har on the other;

(4) that for such trial and determination, all the plaintiffs shall be represented by one firm of solicitors (the nominated solicitors) and one counsel as agreed upon by the plaintiffs, and failing such agreement, as chosen by the court;

(5) the parties file and serve pleadings as follows:

(i) the plaintiffs file one combined points of claim and serve it on Mdm Teo Siew Har`s solicitors within seven days;

(ii) Mdm Teo Siew Har file and serve her points of defence (and counterclaim, if any) on the nominated solicitors within seven days;

(iii) the plaintiffs file and serve their reply (and defence to counterclaim, if any) on Mdm Teo Siew Har`s solicitors within seven days;

(6)

(i) the plaintiffs file and serve their affidavit(s) of evidence-in-chief on Mdm Teo Siew Har`s solicitors within seven days of close of pleadings;

(ii) Mdm Teo Siew Har file and serve her affidavit(s) of evidence-in-chief on the nominated solicitors within seven days of the service of the plaintiffs` affidavit(s) on her;

(7) the plaintiffs set down the matter for three days hearing, within three days of the filing and service of Mdm Teo Siew Har`s affidavit(s);

(8) urgent hearing dates be granted;

(9) that the Mareva injunction and of the appointment of the receiver be discharged as against Mdm Teo Siew Har (except as regards any assets as, pursuant to the above-mentioned trial and determination, are found to be held by her as nominee or bare trustee for her husband); and consequent upon such discharge, that further directions may be given:

(a) as to the burden of costs and expenses incurred in or in connection with such injunction and receivership; and

(b) for the determination of what damages the plaintiffs ought to pay to Mdm Teo Siew Har pursuant to the plaintiffs` undertaking in damages given by them to the court when they obtained the said injunction and appointment of a receiver;

(10) the costs of this application be part of the cause in the abovementioned trial and determination; and

(11) there be liberty to apply.

The words in italics were totally unnecessary and were ordered to be deleted.

Consolidation or its alternatives

The application was made under O 4 r 1(1) of the Rules of Court which are in the following terms:

Where two or more causes or matters are pending, then, if it appears to the Court -

(a) that some common question of law or fact arises in both or all of them;

(b) that the rights to relief claimed therein are in respect of or arise out of the same transaction or series of transactions; or

(c) that for some other reason it is desirable to make an order under this Rule,

the Court may order those causes or matters to be consolidated on such terms as it thinks just or may order them to be tried at the same time or one immediately after another or may order any of them to be stayed until after the determination of any other of them. [Italics added.]

These rules of procedure have been in place to save costs, time and effort and for reasons of convenience in the...