Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chan Seng Onn J |
Judgment Date | 30 September 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGHC 291 |
Year | 2010 |
Date | 30 September 2010 |
Published date | 06 April 2011 |
Hearing Date | 04 August 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Ang Cheng Hock SC and Lim Dao Kai (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Citation | [2010] SGHC 291 |
Defendant Counsel | Thio Shen Yi SC and Collin Seah Lee Guan (TSMP Law Corporation),Burton Chen Nan Chung and Lalitha Rajah (Tan Rajah & Cheah),Fong Shu Jan Jasmine (Tan Kok Quan Partnership),Johnny Cheo (Cheo Yeoh & Associates LLC),Michael Anthony Palmer, Andy Lem Jit Min and Toh Wei Yi (Harry Elias Partnership) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 46 of 2006 |
This judgment is in relation to the costs orders to be made in Suit No 46 of 2006 (“Suit 46/2006”). In that action, the plaintiff company, Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (“RTC”) sued the defendants for breach of their fiduciary duties owed to RTC whilst they were directors of the company (“the Main Action”). That led to three third party claims and one third party counterclaim (“the Third Party Claims”). On 29 May 2010, I gave judgment in favour of the defendants in the Main Action and the Third Party Claims (see
At the conclusion of the
All the background facts pertinent to this judgment on costs have been amply laid out in the
RTC alleged that the Defendants (
These claims were defended vigorously by the Defendants on several fronts, including on the ground that the various impugned transactions had been authorised by the shareholders acting collectively. In particular, Peter Lim sought to distance himself from any alleged impropriety on the part of the directors by denying that he was either a director or a shareholder of RTC at all material times. His denial faced considerable opposition from RTC. Even his alleged co-conspirators, Lawrence Ang and William Tan, brought a counterclaim against Peter Lim and Dennis Foo for an indemnity or contribution on the basis that Peter Lim was a director and shareholder of RTC. On this issue, Lawrence Ang and William Tan aligned themselves with the position taken by RTC in the Main Action.
I agreed with the Defendants in the main and dismissed RTC’s claims against them. However, despite Peter Lim’s strenuous disavowal of his role as a director and shareholder, I had no doubt after having considered the extensive evidence led on this issue at the trial, that he had been a
While RTC acknowledged in its submissions that in general costs should follow the event, it submitted that where a successful party has raised inappropriate claims or issues which caused delay and expense that general rule should not apply. Since a substantial portion of the trial and submissions was devoted to addressing Peter Lim’s position that he was neither a director nor a shareholder of RTC at the material time, which position was ultimately rejected, RTC proposed that the amount of costs payable to Peter Lim should be reduced by at least 40%. Further, since the expert witnesses’ evidence on the issue of the valuation of RTC was not dealt with extensively by any of the parties or relied upon in the
Peter Lim sought costs to be awarded to him on an indemnity basis, to be borne jointly and severally by Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei, or, alternatively, by them and RTC. Lawrence Ang and William Tan proposed that their costs of defending the Main Action be paid by RTC. There was no dispute that RTC had to pay Dennis Foo’s costs in litigating the Main Action. In addition, Peter Lim, Lawrence Ang and William Tan sought a certificate for costs of more than two solicitors under O 59 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“Rules of Court”).
The Third Party ClaimsThird party claims were brought against Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei, the current directors and shareholders of RTC, as well as against Lawrence Ang and William Tan. The latter pair also instituted a counterclaim against Peter Lim and Dennis Foo.
Lawrence Ang and William Tan v Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei
In their third party claim against Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei, Lawrence Ang and William Tan alleged that:
With regard to this third party claim, I held that:
As for costs, Lawrence Ang and William Tan submitted that their costs incurred in instituting this third party claim ought to be paid by RTC. Any costs ordered against them in respect of Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei’s successful defence of this third party claim should also be recoverable from RTC.
Peter Lim v Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei
Peter Lim shared Lawrence Ang and William Tan’s misgivings of conspiracy amongst Margaret Tung, Lin Jian Wei and RTC with the predominant intention of causing personal damage and injury to him. I found (at [227]) that whatever intention they had to injure him was incidental to the Main Action and dismissed this claim against them.
Despite the failure of his third party claim, Peter Lim submitted that there should be no order as to costs, or, alternatively, that RTC should bear his costs. In respect of the costs of their defending these two third party claims against them, Margaret Tung and Lin Jian Wei took the position that costs should follow the event and that separate costs should be awarded to them since they were represented by separate sets of counsel.
Peter Lim and Dennis Foo v Lawrence Ang and William Tan
Peter Lim and Dennis Foo claimed that the commencement of the Main Action by RTC constituted breaches on Lawrence Ang and William Tan’s part of cll 2.4(c) and 5.3 of the Deed of Settlement entered into by the four of them. I decided in favour of Lawrence Ang and William Tan because (a) cl 2.4(c) did not cover the loans impugned in the Main Action; and (b) cl 5.3 did not apply when allegations of fraud and dishonesty have been made against Peter Lim and Dennis Foo (see [231] – [232]).
Even though Peter Lim and Dennis Foo’s third party claim here was unsuccessful, Peter Lim proposed that there should be no order as to costs, or, alternatively, that RTC should bear his costs. Dennis Foo aligned himself with that position. Lawrence Ang and William Tan submitted that the costs of their defending this third party claim should be payable by Peter Lim and Dennis Foo.
Lawrence Ang and William Tan v Peter Lim and Dennis Foo (in counterclaim)
In their counterclaim, Lawrence Ang and William Tan claimed contribution or indemnity from Peter Lim and Dennis Foo in respect of all aspects of the Main Action on the grounds that: (a) Peter Lim was the controlling mind and driving force behind the business of EH, a beneficial shareholder of both EH and RTC and had received large sums of money from EH and RTC through Lawrence Ang; and (b) Dennis Foo was beholden to Peter Lim and was the latter’s agent. I held (at [236]) that owing to the failure of RTC’s claims against the Defendants the issues of indemnity and contribution, which were contingent on RTC’s success in the Main Action, did not arise.
Lawrence Ang and William Tan submitted that the costs of their instituting this counterclaim should be payable by RTC. Peter Lim and Dennis Foo sought costs to be awarded in their favour, payable by Lawrence Ang and William Tan, or recoverable from RTC.
Issues to be decidedIn the exercise of my discretion to arrive at costs orders that are fair and just in respect of who is entitled to costs, what costs are recoverable and who is liable...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Panweld Trading Pte Ltd v Yong Kheng Leong
... ... [1987] SLR (R) 23; [1987] SLR 15 (folld) Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter [2010] SGHC 163 ... ...
-
Lin Jian Wei v Lim Eng Hock Peter
... ... , against the appellants, Lian Jian Wei and Tung Yu-Lien Margaret who were the directors of Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd (‘the Company’) at the material time. The respondent claimed that the ... ...
-
Asiana Airlines, Inc v Gate Gourmet Korea Co, Ltd
...exceptional circumstances” (Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2011] 1 SLR 582 at [29]). [emphasis added] I accept that such a special case might exist where the parties’ contractual agreement so provides (see BNP Par......
-
CIMB Bank Bhd v Italmatic Tyre & Retreading Equipment (Asia) Pte Ltd
...As the Court of Appeal in Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties) [2011] 1 SLR 582 observed, “[c]osts on an indemnity basis should only be ordered in a special case or where there are exceptional circumstances” (at [29]). I......
-
EXPERT EVIDENCE AND ADVERSARIAL COMPROMISE
...of the State Courts Practice Directions. 129 See paras 12 and 19-23 above. 130 See Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter[2011] 1 SLR 582. 131 Cited at para 11 above. 132 A “single joint expert” is defined as “an expert instructed to prepare a report for the court on behalf of two o......
-
Civil Procedure
...the corporate issues which arise where non-parties are the shareholders of a company, see Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter[2011] 1 SLR 582 at [26] and Nanyang Law LLC v Alphomega Research Group Ltd[2012] 4 SLR 1153: cited in nordic at [15][22]. In the circumstances of nordic, ......
-
Civil Procedure
...was entitled to costs of the assessment on the High Court scale. 8.34 The High Court in Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter [2011] 1 SLR 582 (‘Raffles Town Club’) decided not to award costs to Peter Lim pertaining to the issue of whether he was a director with a substantial share......