Yap Shirley Kathreyn v Tan Peng Quee

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 11 January 2011
• Neutral Citation: [2011] SGHC 5
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sankaran Karthikeyan and Bhargavan Sujatha (Toh Tan LLP)
• Docket Number: Suit No 43 of 2010 (Registrar’s Appeal No 242 of 2010) and (Summons No 804 of 2010)
• Date: 2011
• Hearing Date: 23 September 2010,23 March 2010,11 March 2010,30 March 2010,23 July 2010,20 October 2010
• Subject Matter: Conflict of laws
• Published date: 11 January 2011
• Citation: [2011] SGHC 5
• Defendant Counsel: Deborah Barker SC and Ang Keng Ling (Khattar Wong)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 2011

Choo Han Teck J:

The Assistant Registrar (the “AR”) granted the defendant’s application for a temporary stay of proceedings in Suit No 43 of 2010 (“Suit 43”) pending the resolution of an action in the Malaysia courts. The plaintiff appealed against that decision in Registrar’s Appeal No 242 of 2010 (the “Stay Appeal”). At the hearing of this appeal before me, the plaintiff also applied for an anti-suit injunction in Summons No 804 of 2010 to restrain the defendant from commencing any suit in Malaysia or in any forum until the final determination of the Singapore proceedings in Suit 43. After hearing counsel, I dismissed both the Stay Appeal and the Anti-Suit Injunction. The plaintiff has appealed against my decision.

The disputes between the parties here and in Malaysia concerned a partnership known as the Eres Tu No 2 Stable (the “ET 2 Partnership”). The ET 2 Partnership was registered with the Malayan Racing Association (“MRA”) on 28 June 1998 and de-registered on 29 March 2005. MRA is the controlling body of horse racing in the Turf Clubs in Malaysia and Singapore. The parties intended to buy horses and enter them for races through the ET 2 Partnership. There were three partners in the ET 2 Partnership, namely, the plaintiff, the defendant and one Malcolm Thwaites (“Malcolm”).

At the time when the ET 2 Partnership was formed, the plaintiff and Malcolm were in a relationship and were staying together. Their relationship ended in 2006. The plaintiff was in dispute with Malcolm over various matters an as a result, Malcolm commenced action against the plaintiff in Kuala Lumpur High Court on 31 July 2009. The Malaysia proceedings between Malcolm and the plaintiff relate to various properties and transactions including the accounts and winnings of the ET 2 Partnership as well as another horse racing partnership (in which the defendant was not a partner). The plaintiff counterclaimed for the return of a sum of US$910,000 allegedly loaned to Malcolm by her for the purchase of a horse.

The defendant allegedly learnt from Malcolm that the plaintiff had not fully accounted to him for his share of the ET 2 Partnership earnings. The defendant then sent the plaintiff a letter of demand on 13 January 2010 seeking an account of the income generated by ET 2 Partnership and payment of the sums RM443,653.00 and S$531,172.00. On 21 January 2010, the plaintiff commenced proceedings in Singapore against the defendant seeking payment of RM543,660.00 and S$1,123,513.60 and an accounting of the monies earned by the ET 2 Partnership, viz Suit No 43 of 2010. Shortly after, the defendant commenced proceedings against the plaintiff in Kuala Lumpur High Court on 25 January 2010. On 11 February 2010, the defendant filed an application in Singapore for a stay of the proceedings in Suit No 43 of 2010. The plaintiff...