Philip Morris Products Inc v Power Circle Sdn Bhd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: G P Selvam J
• Judgment Date: 31 March 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 72
• Date: 31 March 1999
• Subject Matter: Pleadings,Striking out,embarrassing to opponent in not knowing case to meet,concept of cause of action,statement of claim incomplete and incompetent,Civil Procedure
• Docket Number: Suit No 1164 of 1998 (Registrar's
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Samuel Chacko and Sureshan T Kulasingam (Manjit Samuel & Pnrs)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Wee Meng and Corinne Tan (Allen & Gledhill)

Judgment:

GP SELVAM J

This is an appeal from Senior Asst Registrar Mr James KY Leong striking out the statement of claim against the sixth defendants.

2.The purpose of this action was to restrain nine defendants from `infringing the MARLBORO trade marks` and passing off imitation MARLBORO cigarettes and for consequential orders including an inquiry as to damages.

3.The application to strike out was filed on 5 August 1988 and came up for hearing first on 19 August 1998. It was adjourned for three weeks. On 9 September 1998 the order to strike out was made. There was no application before the Senior Asst Registrar to amend the statement of claim. The plaintiffs appealed against that order. When the appeal came up for hearing before Lim Teong Qwee JC it was adjourned for four weeks. There was no application to put right the statement of claim. Lim Teong Qwee JC pointed out the defect in the statement of claim and suggested that it be amended.

4.Then the appeal came up for hearing before me on 4 November 1998. It could not be heard because the appellant`s counsel was busy. I accommodated counsel and adjourned the appeal for hearing on 6 November 1998. So I heard the appeal on 6 November 1998.

5.I had perused the statement of claim in advance. To explain how the statement of claim came across to me I must restate my view on the concept of cause of action. In Multi-Pak Pte Ltd v Intraco Ltd [1992] 2 SLR 793 I explained that the concept has two dimensions. First, it means the legal basis which entitles the plaintiff to succeed. Next, it signifies the factual situation which entitles one person to obtain from the court a remedy against another person.

6.The importance of the second limb lies in its purpose: there must be ample and clear allegations to inform the opponent and the court in advance of the case the opponent has to meet and settle the defence and prepare for the trial. Without that the defendants will be embarrassed. It may even amount to denial of justice to the defendants as he might be able to assemble and preserve the necessary evidence to establish his defence. In other words, such incompetent and incomplete pleading might make a fair trial difficult or impossible.

7.The plaintiffs in this case dismally failed in fulfilling the second requirement of cause of action. The statement of claim against the sixth defendants was incomplete and incompetent. The sixth defendants were mentioned only in two instances and that...