Pertamina v Kartika Ratna Thahir and Others

• Judge: T S Sinnathuray J
• Judgment Date: 27 September 1982
• Neutral Citation: [1982] SGHC 31
• Citation: [1982] SGHC 31
• Defendant Counsel: MO Saville QC and J Grimberg (Drew & Napier),HL Wee (Braddell Brothers)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Michael Sherrard QC and S Selvadurai (Selvadurai, Pala Krishnan & Pnrs)
• Date: 27 September 1982
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 308 of 1976
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Application to strike out whole statement of claim on grounds that it was scandalous, frivolous or vexatious,Pleadings,Approach of court to such applications,Statement of claim,Civil Procedure

The application of the plaintiffs in summons-in-chambers No 2425 of 1981 to strike out certain paragraphs of the defence of the first defendant, and the application of the first defendant in summons-in-chambers No 3199 of 1981 to strike out the whole of the statement of claim of the plaintiffs and all their subsequent pleadings were heard one following the other, first the plaintiffs` application, then that of the first defendant`s.

The two applications are made under the inherent jurisdiction of the court and/or O 18 r 19 of the Rules of the Supreme Court and the grounds for the applications are the same. They are:

(1) that no reasonable cause of action/defence is disclosed; and/or

(2) that the matters complained of are scandalous, frivolous or vexatious; and/or

(3) that they may prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action; and/or

(4) that they are otherwise an abuse of the process of the court.

To deal with the applications, I have to give a brief account of the history of these proceedings as it sheds light on the decisions I have made.

On 30 July 1976 the Singapore branch of the Sumitomo Bank Ltd (the bank) made an application in this Originating Summons No 308/76 for relief by way of an interpleader. The facts that led to the commencement of the proceedings are these.

Mr HA Thahir, an Indonesian national, was a senior employee and executive of the plaintiffs. He died on 23 July 1976. On that day, there was with the bank in Asian Currency Unit (ACU) deposits DM53,972,374.12 and US$1,202,208.73 in the name of Mr HA Thahir, and/or Mrs KR Thahir.

On 27 July 1976 Mrs Thahir went to the bank and demanded payment to her of sums totalling DM8,310,982.99 and US$608,959.42. She also demanded that the balance of the said ACU deposits be transferred to her sole name. That same day, Mr lbrahim Thahir, one of the children of Mr HA Thahir, directed the bank not to pay out any moneys to Mrs KR Thahir from the said ACU deposits until the respective beneficial interests of Mrs KR Thahir and the estate of Mr HA Thahir are determined. Because of the two claims made against the bank by different persons, the bank was placed in a difficult position and it applied to the court for relief. Mrs KR Thahir was cited as the first defendant. Two sons of Mr HA Thahir, Mr Abubakar Thahir and Mr lbrahim Thahir were made the second defendants to represent the estate of HA Thahir. About a year later, on 24 June 1977 PT Pertambangan Das Gas Bumi Negara (Pertamina) were added as the third defendants.

The next step in the proceedings came two years and four months later. On 15 October 1979, Pertamina, the third defendants, took out an interlocutory application for an issue to be stated and tried between the first, second and third defendants as to which of the said defendants is entitled to the sums of money represented by the ACU deposit accounts at the bank in the name of Mr HA Thahir, and/or Mrs KR Thahir and for consequential orders and directions for the trial of the issue.

Before Pertamina`s application could be heard, on 30 November 1979, Mrs KR Thahir, the first defendant, took out a summons-in-chambers wherein she asked for an order that the originating summons of the bank be dismissed on the ground that it was misconceived. More of interest now is that in this summons-in-chambers, she sought another order, that an issue be ordered between Pertamina and herself in which Pertamina shall be plaintiffs and she shall be defendant.

The two applications, that of Pertamina and that of Mrs Thahir, came on for hearing before me in open court on 10 March 1980. At the end of the hearing the next day, on 11 March, I held that the originating summons of the bank for interpleader relief was not misconceived. I was also satisfied on the facts told to me and the questions of law canvassed that there were issues to be tried with the third defendants, Pertamina, as the plaintiffs and the first defendant, Mrs KR Thahir, and second defendants, Mr Abubakar Thahir and Mr Ibrahim Thahir, as the first and second defendants in the issue, respectively. On the next day, 12 March 1980, at the adjourned hearing in chambers, I gave directions relating to the filing and serving of the pleadings between the parties.

What happened after that is described in the following corrected transcript of my oral grounds of decision given on 21 March 1981:

The parties are here this afternoon in respect of draft orders which were submitted to the Registrar nearly a year later for approval in respect of the hearing that took place on 11 and 12 March 1980. This is the second time that the parties appear before me. They were here on 2 February 1981 when I made the following orders:

(1) That the party directed as plaintiff submit draft orders for approval by me.

This afternoon there are two draft orders. Much discussion has been had and fresh draft orders are to be submitted for approval on the lines discussed.

(2) That the parties may either include in the draft orders or in a separate document the issues relating to the proceedings on which pleadings were ordered to be filed and served.

Again, only this afternoon has this been done and discussed. The issues have now been agreed by the parties and they are to be in a document separate and distinct from the draft orders.

(3) That all pleadings that had been filed be struck out.

Now Mr Ross-Munro for the first defendant submits that this court has no power to strike out the pleadings that had been filed; alternatively, that if the court has a discretion in the matter, the discretion was wrongly exercised. Mr Harry Wee for the second defendants supports Mr Ross-Munro. He further submits that it should be left to the party or parties to apply to the court to strike out any part of the pleadings under the Rules of Court. Mr Selvadurai for the plaintiffs associates himself with both Mr Wee and Mr Ross-Munro.

The first point I make on the order that the pleadings be struck out is this: that the pleadings directed to be filed under O 17 are not pleadings as in an action commenced by a writ of summons. In an interpleader summons pleadings are ordered and directed by the court. That power is exercised by the court under O 17:

`5(1) where on the hearing of a summons ... the court may order -

(a) ...

(b) that an issue between the claimants be stated and tried and may direct which of the claimants is to be plaintiff and which defendant.`

The proceedings are different from that commenced by writ of summons where the interlocutory stages are governed by the Rules of Court. In my judgment, in interpleader proceedings the court has control of the proceedings at a very early stage, when the court directs issues to be framed and directs who shall be the plaintiff and who shall be the defendant or defendants.

Until today no issues had been framed on which pleadings could have been served and filed. As I said on 2 February and I repeat it today, that when I set the time frame for the pleadings on 12 March 1980 I assumed that parties would get on and comply with O 17 r 5 and if they had difficulty in drafting the issues, I assumed that they would come back to me. Instead the parties have merrily exchanged prolix pleadings which have been filed in the Registry. In the way I look at it, I cannot accede to the submission that this court has no power to exercise control in these matters.

Now that the issues are agreed, I direct that pleadings be settled on the issues as framed. I do not think that all labour is lost. From the pleadings that were filed before the issues were framed, it should not be difficult for counsel before me to recast them.

At the hearing in chambers, I also inquired into the time the parties would require to prepare and file the new pleadings. I was soon told by Mr Ross-Munro for the first defendant followed by Mr Selvadurai for the plaintiffs that they were going to re-file the same pleadings that had been struck out. For my part, I made it clear that the parties were to plead to the issues. I also said then that I did not wish to express any opinion on the form of the pleadings but that the court would look into them at the proper time.

It is, I think, a matter for regret that the pleadings on the issue of the plaintiffs and the first defendant are identical to those pleadings that were struck out for non-compliance of the interpleader rules. The statement of claim of 23 pages was filed on 3 April 1981. The request for further and better particulars of the first defendant on the statement of claim which runs into 23 pages was served on the plaintiffs` solicitors the next day, on 4 April 1981. The answers which are in 51 pages (excluding the attachments) was served on the first defendant`s solicitors on 6 April 1981. The defence of the first defendant set out in 15 pages was filed on 8 April 1981. The request for further and better particulars of the plaintiffs on the defence of the first defendant was served on the first defendant`s solicitors that same day. The answers furnished in 22 pages was served on the plaintiffs` solicitors two days later, on 10 April 1981. The reply of 14 pages was filed earlier, on 9 April 1981.

The issue between the plaintiffs and the first defendant is:

Whether as the plaintiffs affirm and the first and second defendants deny, the plaintiffs are entitled to the moneys being the ACU deposits and interest or proceeds in the Sumitomo Bank Ltd (the said moneys) in the names of HA Thahir and/or Kartika Ratna Thahir on one or more of the grounds following:

(a) belong to the plaintiffs absolutely,

(b) are held subject to a trust in favour of the plaintiffs and not otherwise,

(c) as being monies held and received to the plaintiffs` use,

(d) being the proceeds of crime or otherwise obtained unlawfully and/or in breach of contract by the said HA Thahir should not be disposed of otherwise...