Manas Kumar Ghosh v MSI Ship Management Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Aedit Abdullah J
• Judgment Date: 27 August 2020
• Docket Number: Suit No 670 of 2018 (Registrar's Appeals Nos 273 and 274 of 2019)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Manas Kumar Ghosh

and

MSI Ship Management Pte Ltd and others

[2020] SGHC 179

Aedit Abdullah J

Suit No 670 of 2018 (Registrar's Appeals Nos 273 and 274 of 2019)

High Court

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking out — Action brought in breach of undertaking to not commence litigation — Whether action brought in breach of settlement agreement liable to being struck out — Order 18 r 19 Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Determination of question of law or construction of document — When such determination might be appropriate — Principles governing determination of construction of document — Order 14 r 12 Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

Res Judicata — Extended doctrine of res judicata — Operation of extended doctrine of res judicata where earlier action was brought to end by settlement — Identity of parties — Factors in determining whether abuse of process was taking place

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) A determination of a question of law or construction of a document without trial by the court under O 14 r 12 of the ROC could be made if it would save time and costs, even if it would not dispose of the entire dispute. The overriding consideration in deciding when the discretion to make such a determination would be exercised was whether summary determination on the facts of the case would fulfil the underlying purpose of O 14 r 12 of the ROC, to save time and costs for the parties. However, factual disputes would not be suitable for such determination: at [18] and [19].

(2) There were no material factual disputes relating to the instant application under O 14 r 12 of the ROC, and the question in the present case was suitable for determination. The question was simply whether the first and second defendants were agents for the purposes of the settlement agreement. It was a matter of the construction of the documents, and in particular the contracts entered into between the parties. Such a determination would determine the proceedings, or at least a substantial issue therein, and would save time and costs: at [20].

(3) It was not enough in resisting an application under O 14 r 12 of the ROC to merely assert that factual issues would arise. Sufficient material should be placed before the court so that an assessment could be made whether the need for factual weighing of the evidence was real and not merely illusory. Crucially, there was nothing in the instant plaintiff's pleadings which illustrated a factual dispute that would preclude the operation of O 14 r 12 of the ROC: at [22].

(4) The first and second defendants were agents of the third defendant within the ambit of the settlement agreement. This was illustrated by the applicable contracts between the defendants, which treated the first and second defendants as agents of the third defendant shipowner. The relevant agreements between each of the first and second defendants, and the third defendant, incorporated the “SHIPMAN 2009” standard terms. Clauses 3 and 8 of SHIPMAN 2009, read with the relevant explanatory notes, made clear that the first and second defendants carried out the services provided in respect of the vessel as agents for and on behalf of the owners: at [25] and [26].

(5) It was immaterial that the first and/or second defendants would otherwise have been independent contractors at general law. The contractual clauses effectively deemed the first and second defendants as agents for the third defendant in the execution of their duties as ship managers, and this formed part of the background that had to be considered in construing the settlement agreement: at [34].

(6) The principles governing the application of O 18 r 19(1) of the ROC were reasonably well established. Significantly for the present facts, an action brought in breach of an undertaking to not commence litigation was liable to be struck out under O 18 r 19 of the ROC as being vexatious and an abuse of the process of court. The very essence of entering into a full and final settlement in the context of personal injury was twofold: to secure a measure of recompense for the injury suffered, and to allow for finality for the potentially liable party. For the plaintiff to then turn around and persist in seeking to claim damages for injury he had already been compensated for would be to undermine the very basis of the settlement: at [42].

(7) The extended doctrine of res judicata aimed to bring finality to litigation and avoid multiplicity of proceedings. This promoted the public interest of efficiency and economy in litigation, and also prevented litigants from being oppressed and unfairly harassed by legal proceedings. In deciding whether the doctrine applied, the court might also assess other considerations such as: (a) whether there were bona fide reasons why an issue that ought to have been raised in the earlier action was not raised, (b) how closely connected the causes of action were in terms of the required supporting facts, and (c) whether, holistically speaking, the later proceedings were in substance nothing more than a collateral attack on the previous decision. The doctrine extended to matters which had been settled either by consent or settlement, and there was no need for strict identity of parties for the doctrine to apply, at least in respect of litigation: at [55] to [57].

(8) The extended doctrine of res judicata would apply to the instant facts. First, the plaintiff was relying on fundamentally the same set of facts in the present action against the first and second defendants as it did in its action against the third defendant in the 2016 suit. Second, the plaintiff was seeking the same remedy in monetary damages for the same loss as had been sought in the 2016 suit. Third, the plaintiff was aware of the existence of the first and second defendants when the 2016 suit was brought. Thus, even if the first and second defendants were not agents of the third defendant within the scope of the settlement agreement, the extended doctrine of res judicata would have operated to render the suit an abuse of process: from [59] to [62].

Case(s) referred to

ANB v ANF [2011] 2 SLR 1 (refd)

Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd v Nurdian Cuaca [2018] 3 SLR 117 (folld)

Beam Technology (Mfg) Pte Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank [2003] 1 SLR(R) 597; [2003] 1 SLR 597 (refd)

Bradford & Bingley Building Society v Seddon [1999] 1 WLR 1482 (refd)

Bunga Melati 5, The [2012] 4 SLR 546 (refd)

Chem Orchid, The [2016] 2 SLR 50 (refd)

Chua Choon Lim Robert v MN Swami [2000] 2 SLR(R) 589; [2000] 4 SLR 494 (folld)

Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649; [1998] 1 SLR 374 (refd)

Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453; [2007] 1 SLR 453 (refd)

Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100 (refd)

Jeffrey Charles Stuart v Stephen Goldberg [2008] 1 WLR 823; [2008] EWCA Civ 2 (refd)

Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2006] 2 SLR(R) 565; [2006] 2 SLR 565 (refd)

Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan [2017] 2 SLR 760 (refd)

Olivine Capital Pte Ltd v Chia Chin Yan [2014] 2 SLR 1371 (refd)

Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Ngu Tieng Ung [1999] 2 SLR(R) 744; [1999] 4 SLR 379 (refd)

Payna Chettiar v Maimoon bte Ismail [1997] 1 SLR(R) 738; [1997] 3 SLR 387 (refd)

Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty Pte Ltd [1991] 1 SLR(R) 844; [1991] SLR 798 (refd)

Then Khek Koon v Arjun Permanand Samtani [2014] 1 SLR 245 (refd)

TMT Asia Ltd v BHP Billiton Marketing AG (Singapore Branch) [2015] 2 SLR 540 (refd)

Venkatraman Kalyanaraman v Nithya Kalyani [2016] 4 SLR 1365 (refd)

Xia Zhengyan v Geng Changqing [2015] 3 SLR 732 (refd)

Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029; [2008] 3 SLR 1029 (folld)

Facts

On 2 July 2015, the plaintiff, who was at the time the third engineer working on board the X-Press Makalu (the “vessel”), of the Port of Singapore, suffered injuries while working on board the vessel. At the time the injuries were suffered, the plaintiff had been acting under the instructions of the second engineer of the vessel. The plaintiff's hands were amputated following the accident.

In 2016, the plaintiff commenced HC/ADM 257/2016 (“the 2016 suit”) against the third defendant, which was at the material time the owner of the vessel. This claim was eventually settled and a settlement agreement dated 24 January 2018 was entered into between the plaintiff and the third defendant. The terms of the settlement agreement were sealed. Subsequent to the settlement agreement being entered into, the plaintiff discontinued the 2016 suit.

Barely six months after the settlement agreement, the plaintiff commenced the present suit against the first and second defendants for the injuries he had suffered. The first defendant was, at the time of the plaintiff's accident, the ship manager of the vessel. The second defendant was, from December 2013 until 15 June 2015, the ship manager of the vessel. Both the first and second defendants had been engaged by the third defendant as ship managers for the vessel. By virtue of HC/ORC 1159/2019 dated 19 February 2019, the third defendant was granted leave to intervene as a defendant in this suit.

On 12 March 2019, all three defendants filed an application in HC/SUM 1258/2019 for the determination of a question of the construction of a document under O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) (“ROC”). The question for determination presented in the summons was “Whether the 1^st and 2^nd Defendants are ‘agents’ as specified under Clauses 1.6 and 2.1 of the Settlement Agreement …”. On the same day, all three defendants filed a further application in HC/SUM 1250/2019 under O 18 r 19 of the ROC for the statement of claim filed by the plaintiff to be struck out and the action accordingly dismissed. The assistant registrar below found for the defendants on both applications, holding that the first and second defendants were agents, and striking out the statement of claim. The plaintiff appealed.

...