Sumio Sakata and Others v Fuminori Paul Naruse and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 14 May 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 102
• Plaintiff Counsel: Edmund Kronenburg and Adrian Ng (Tan Peng Chin LLC)
• Published date: 19 May 2004
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Defendant Counsel: Ronald Choo (Rajah and Tann),Tan Kok Quan SC and Audrey Thng (Tan Kok Quan Partnership),Suresh Nair (Allen and Gledhill)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Interim orders,Security for costs,Variation of security of costs order upon change of solicitors,Whether appellate interference with exercise of discretion warranted,Whether the provision of a further sum as security necessary,Whether apportionment from original sum adequate.

14 May 2004

Choo Han Teck J:

1 This was an appeal by the plaintiffs against an order by the assistant registrar that the security for costs ordered against them in the sum of $375,000 be varied. The second defendant was initially represented by the same solicitors as the other defendants. She changed solicitors after the orders for the provision of security for costs had been made. The amount ordered was to cover costs up to trial.

2 When the second defendant changed solicitors she applied for a variation of the orders and was granted an order for $20,000 in her favour to be apportioned from the original sum of $375,000. In addition to that, a further sum of $300,000 was ordered to be provided for her benefit.

3 The second defendant regarded herself as a “major player” and submitted that even the plaintiffs’ solicitors admitted as much. Her counsel submitted that she had to change solicitors because it appeared that there might be conflict of interests between herself and the first defendant. She had taken a long time to appreciate this potential complication.

4 An order for security for costs in the case of a foreign plaintiff is made so that a successful defendant will be spared the agony of pursuing his adversary for costs in an unfamiliar jurisdiction. In principle, therefore, the defendant should face his foreign opponent in the same circumstances as he faces a local one. But it is a principle that requires a great deal of adjustments because of variety and uncertainty in each case. The application of this ostensibly simple principle of law to an imponderable variety of circumstances is, therefore, by necessity, left to the exercise of the court’s discretion. Orders so made should not be disturbed on appeal because discretion must be given a wide berth. In exceptional circumstances, however, interference in the orders might be warranted, as in this case.

5 This is an action commenced by the four Japanese plaintiffs against the 16 defendants. The first and second defendants are the principal defendants. The others are either nominees or corporate vehicles allegedly used by the first and second defendants. The claims are substantial. Some of them have not yet been quantified, but the dozen or so that have been, exceeded $30,000,000. The claims were based on breaches of fiduciary duty and conspiracy to defraud. The background of this dispute between the parties as set out in the lengthy statement of claim was that the first and second plaintiffs were misled into investing money in companies pursuant to representations by the first and/or second defendants that those companies held...