Pacific Integrated Logistics Pte Ltd v Gorman Vernel International Freight Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 03 January 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 10
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 10
• Subject Matter: Interim orders,Plaintiff foreign company with no assets in Singapore,Whether court should exercise discretion to make order for security for costs against plaintiff in circumstances when potential order of costs may be enforced in plaintiff's jurisdiction,Order 23 r (1)(a) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed),Civil Procedure,Security for costs
• Published date: 18 January 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: Wendy Tan (Haq & Selvam)
• Defendant Counsel: Magdalene Chew Sui Gek and Martha Lee Mei (AsiaLegal LLC)
• Docket Number: Suit No 788 of 2005 (Registrar's
• Date: 03 January 2007

3 January 2007

Choo Han Teck J:

1 This was an appeal against the decision of the Assistant Registrar (“the AR”) dismissing the appellant’s application for security for costs in Suit No 788 of 2005(“the main claim”). The appellant and respondent in this appeal were respectively the defendant and the plaintiff in the main claim. The respondent’s claim against the appellant arose out of damage caused to five shipments of cargo. According to the respondent, the appellant had, amongst other things, breached its contract and/or duty as the handling and/or booking agents hired by the respondent for these five shipments. After hearing the parties, I allowed the appeal and granted security in the amount of S$60,000.

2 The appellant’s application for security was filed pursuant to O 23 r 1(1)(a) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“the Rules”), which provides:

Security for costs of action, etc (O 23, r 1)

1.– (1) Where, on the application of a defendant to an action or other proceeding in the Court, it appears to the Court –

(a) that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction;

…

then, if, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, the Court thinks it just to do so, it may order the plaintiff to give such security for the defendant’s costs of the action or other proceeding as it thinks just.

[emphasis added]

3 The parties were agreed that the respondent, a company incorporated under the laws of New Zealand, was a “plaintiff … ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction” within the meaning in O 23 r 1(1)(a) of the Rules. In addition, it was not disputed that the respondent had no assets in Singapore. The only issue in this appeal was whether it would be “just” to grant an order for security “having regard to all the circumstances”.

4 Whilst O 23 r 1(1) confers a court with a broad measure of discretion, the exercise of this discretion remains guided by certain well-established principles. The middle ground between the Scylla of placing the law in a straightjacket through a formalistic “check-list” approach and the Charybdis of engendering a body of jurisprudence devoid of any coherent underlying basis seems to me to be the fairest approach. How might this be achieved?

5 To begin with, it is well accepted that proof of a plaintiff’s residence outside Singapore is a threshold condition under r 1(1)(a), rather than a conclusive indicator that security should be ordered: see Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd [2004] 2 SLR...