VBH Singapore Pte Ltd v Technobuilt Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Judge | Tan Teck Ping Karen AR |
Judgment Date | 07 May 2013 |
Neutral Citation | [2013] SGHCR 12 |
Citation | [2013] SGHCR 12 |
Docket Number | Suit No 410 of 2012 (Summons No 1741 of 2013) |
Hearing Date | 26 April 2013 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Mr A Rajandran (M/s A Rajandran) |
Defendant Counsel | Mr Kelvin Tan and Mr Jason Chen (M/s Drew & Napier LLC) |
Subject Matter | Companies,Striking Out |
Published date | 21 May 2013 |
This is the 2
The plaintiff is a company in the construction business, including providing services as general contractors. The 1
The 1
The plaintiff’s claim is for the total sum of $376,463.05, being the balance monies due and owing to the plaintiffs, including retention monies, in respect of work done, services rendered and materials supplied by the plaintiffs for the two projects.
Default judgment has been entered against the 1
The contracts in respect of the NAP Project and the EDTC Project were entered into between the 1
As preliminary issues, the plaintiff argued that this application should not be allowed because: (a) there was a delay by the 2
On the issue of delay, O18 r 19(1) of the Rules states that “The Court may
While an application to strike out a pleading should be made as soon as possible, a late application is not doomed to failure (see
Although the Writ of Summons was filed on 17 May 2012, due to various interlocutory applications, pleadings only closed on 14 December 2012. Parties filed their list of documents on 7 February 2013. As parties have just completed discovery, I am of the view that proceedings are still at an early stage and there are no grounds to hold that this application should not be allowed due to delay.
Further, in
The plaintiff’s second preliminary objection to this application is that this is an abuse of process.
The plaintiff argues that, as this application was filed shortly after the plaintiff’s application to seek specific discovery from the 2
While the timing of this application does appear to support the plaintiff’s argument, I find that, the timing of the application by itself, would be insufficient to elevate this application to one which is an abuse of process. This is especially since a striking out application may be filed at any time and I have found that there is no inordinate delay in this application. I also note that the 2
Therefore, for the reasons stated above, I find that the filing of this application is not an abuse of process and there was no undue delay in filing this application.
No reasonable cause of action – O18 r19 (a) of the Rules The law relating to O18 r19(a) is well established. See
...The pleading itself must fail to make out a reasonable cause of action without reference to other evidence before it can be struck out under limb (a)....
The Court of Appeal in
...The draconian power of the court to strike out a claim at the interlocutory stage under limb (a) of O 18 r 19(1) can only be exercised when it is patently clear that there is no reasonable cause of action on the fact of the pleadings. The mere fact that a case is weak and not likely to succeed is not a valid ground for striking out a claim under this ground. In the Singapore High Court decision of
Active Timber Agencies Pte Ltd v Allen & Gledhill [1995] 3 SLR(R) 334 , Rubin J held (at [13]) that:...a reasonable cause of...
To continue reading
Request your trial