Lim Kok Lian (executor and trustee of the estate of Lee Biau Luan, deceased) v Lee Patricia (executor and trustee of the estate of Lee Biau Luan, deceased) and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Edmund Leow JC |
Judgment Date | 23 December 2014 |
Neutral Citation | [2014] SGHC 272 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Nair Suresh Sukumaran and Tan Tse Hsien, Bryan (Chen Shixian) (Straits Law Practice LLC),Chin Jun Qi (Drew and Napier LLC) (on watching brief) |
Docket Number | Suit No 584 of 2013 (Registrar’s Appeals Nos 253, 254, 255 and 256 of 2014) |
Date | 23 December 2014 |
Hearing Date | 24 November 2014 |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure,Striking out |
Published date | 29 December 2014 |
Citation | [2014] SGHC 272 |
Defendant Counsel | Yeo Khirn Hai Alvin SC and Sim Mei Ling (WongPartnership LLP) (instructed), Wong Tjen Wee (Eldan Law LLP) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Year | 2014 |
The main issue in these appeals is whether the counterclaims brought by the defendants should be struck out under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“the ROC”). After hearing the parties on 24 November 2014, I reserved judgment to give further consideration to the parties’ submissions.
Background facts The plaintiff in Suit No 584 of 2013, Lim Kok Lian (“KL”), is the executor and trustee of the estate of Lee Biau Luan, his late mother. KL is suing his sister and co-executor, Patricia Lee (“Pat”) and her son, Mark Tan Chai Ming (“Mark”) for,
KK and PM brought Summons No 2794 of 2014 and Summons No 2305 of 2014 (“the Striking Out Summonses”) respectively to strike out the counterclaims against them. They were both successful in their respective striking out applications before the Assistant Registrar (“the AR”) save for the claim in conspiracy by lawful means which the AR declined to strike out. They now appeal in Registrar’s Appeals Nos 253 and 254 of 2014 against the AR’s decision not to strike out the remaining claim while Pat and Mark brought Registrar’s Appeals Nos 255 and 256 of 2014 appealing against the AR’s decision to strike out the other three claims.
The decision belowThe AR held that the cause of action for malicious civil proceedings was legally unsustainable because Pat and Mark were unable to satisfy the requirement that a prior proceeding has been determined in their favour. Similarly, the AR struck out the claim for abuse of process because commencing an action to seek leverage to obtain a compromise of proceedings was not a collateral purpose. Since the torts of malicious prosecution and abuse of process were struck out, it was held that the claim for conspiracy by unlawful means would also be struck out. For the claim of conspiracy by lawful means, the AR declined to strike it out because the alleged predominant purpose was to further the legitimate interest of enlarging the estate, a matter which was to be determined at trial.
The parties’ submissions Pat and Mark’s submissions can be summarised as follows:
KK and PM’s submissions can be summarised as follows:
The following issues to be decided in these appeals are as follows:
O 18 r 19 of the ROC states as follows:
Striking out pleadings and endorsements (O. 18, r. 19) 19. —(1) The Court may at any stage of the proceedings order to be struck out or amended any pleading or the endorsement of any writ in the action, or anything in any pleading or in the endorsement, on the ground that —(a ) it discloses no reasonable cause of action or defence, as the case may be;(b ) it is scandalous, frivolous or vexatious;(c ) it may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; or(d ) it is otherwise an abuse of the process of the Court,and may order the action to be stayed or dismissed or judgment to be entered accordingly, as the case may be.
(2) No evidence shall be admissible on an application under paragraph (1)(
a ).(3) This Rule shall, as far as applicable, apply to an originating summons as if it were a pleading.
In the Striking Out Summonses, it was stated that the applications were made pursuant to all four limbs of O 18 r 19(1). Counsel for PM and KK, Mr Suresh Nair, stated at the hearing before the AR below that he was relying principally on the “no reasonable cause of action” limb,
I would have been better assisted by counsel if they had related their submissions to the particular limb of O 18 r 19(1) that they were relying on. Parties and the counsel representing them would do well to heed the following observations made by V K Rajah JA in
[emphasis in original]
Notwithstanding this slight ambiguity in the parties’ submissions, I shall consider both O 18 r 19(1)(
It is established law that the threshold for striking out a claim is a high one. The court will strike out a claim only if it is plainly or obviously unsustainable (see
It is not entirely clear whether this tort is a recognised cause of action in Singapore. On one hand, the High Court case of
The case of… The tort of malicious prosecution does not, however, extend to civil proceedings and disciplinary proceedings. One reason is that in civil proceedings, the expenses incurred by the defendant in the action may be compensated for by an award of costs. …
The existence of the tort was also doubted recently in
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Singapore Shooting Association v Singapore Rifle Association
...Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301 [2018] 2 SLR 866 (refd) Li Siu Lun v Looi Kok Poh [2015] 4 SLR 667 (refd) Lim Kok Lian v Lee Patricia [2015] 1 SLR 1184 (refd) Lin Jian Wei v Lim Eng Hock Peter [2011] 3 SLR 1052 (refd) Lock Han Chng Jonathan v Goh Jessiline [2008] 2 SLR(R) 455; [2008] 2 SLR 455 (......
-
JPG Enterprise Pte Ltd v Hairspec Private Limited
...but impossible (Koh Kim Teck v Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch [2015] SGHC 52 at [21]; Lim Kok Lian v Lee Patricia and another [2014] SGHC 272 at [12]). To resist a striking out application, all the respondent needs to show is that there are triable issues of fact and law (Qroi Ltd v Pas......
-
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301
...of the estate of Lee Biau Luan, deceased) v Lee Patricia (executor and trustee of the estate of Lee Biau Luan, deceased) and another [2015] 1 SLR 1184 (“Lim Kok Lian”), Edmund Leow JC observed (at [13]) that it was “not entirely clear whether the tort of abuse of process is a recognised cau......
-
AYW v AYX
...of the estate of Lee Biau Luan, deceased) v Lee Patricia (executor and trustee of the estate of Lee Biau Luan, deceased) and another [2015] 1 SLR 1184, the High Court refused to strike out a counterclaim invoking the tort of malicious civil proceedings and the tort of abuse of process. The ......
-
Tort Law
...decisions –Strategic Worldwide Assets Ltd v Sandz Solutions (Singapore) Pte Ltd[2013] 4 SLR 662 at [93]; Lim Kok Lian v Lee Patricia[2015] 1 SLR 1184 at [13]; and Bhagwan Singh v Chand Singh[1968–1970] SLR(R) 50 at [28] – suggest that this issue is yet to be resolved. 26.45 It should be not......
-
Tort Law
...SLR 395 at [101]. 57 [2013] 4 SLR 662. 58 Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter [2013] 1 SLR 374; Lim Kok Lian v Lee Patricia [2015] 1 SLR 1184. 59 [2019] 4 SLR 254. 60 Low Tuck Kwong v Sukamto Sia [2013] 1 SLR 1016 at [15]. 61 Bachmeer Capital Ltd v Ong Chih Ching [2019] 4 SLR 254......