Chua Choon Lim Robert v MN Swami: Striking Out, Abuse of Process & Limitation Act

In Chua Choon Lim Robert v MN Swami, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the Senior Assistant Registrar's decision to strike out his action against nine defendants. The plaintiff's claims, related to events from 1979 and 1980, were found to be time-barred under the Limitation Act, an abuse of process, and in breach of an undertaking given to the court. The court also prohibited the plaintiff from recommencing litigation without leave.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiff's action struck out for abuse of process and being time-barred under the Limitation Act. The court prohibited further litigation without leave.

1.7 Decision Date

18 July 2000

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Chua Choon Lim Robert	Plaintiff, Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost
MN Swami	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	KH Imran of Tan Rajah & Cheah
Gay Kok Peng	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Michael Moey of Moey & Yuen
Ng Yik Soon Richard	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Michael Moey of Moey & Yuen
Heng Keng Leng	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won
Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Ltd	Defendant, Respondent	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Ashok Kumar of Allen & Gledhill Edwin Tong of Allen & Gledhill
Sam & Wijaya	Defendant, Respondent	Partnership	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Cheah Kok Lim of Michael Khoo & Partners
Allen & Gledhill	Defendant, Respondent	Law Firm	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Ashok Kumar of Allen & Gledhill Edwin Tong of Allen & Gledhill
Former Group Sales Manager of the company	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Yip Shee Yin of Yeo Leong & Peh
Former agency manager of the company	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Rodney Keong of Bih Li & Lee

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Amarjeet Singh	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
KH Imran	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Michael Moey	Moey & Yuen
Ashok Kumar	Allen & Gledhill
Edwin Tong	Allen & Gledhill
Cheah Kok Lim	Michael Khoo & Partners
Yip Shee Yin	Yeo Leong & Peh
Rodney Keong	Bih Li & Lee

4. Facts

The plaintiff filed a writ of summons and statement of claim on 24 May 2000.
The plaintiff had differences with supervisors and subordinates in 1979 and 1980.
The plaintiff resigned from Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Ltd on 15 September 1980.
The plaintiff brought an action in Suit 7228/85 against three fellow sales employees.
The plaintiff's appeal in Suit 7228/85 lapsed due to failure to file a petition of appeal.
The plaintiff gave undertakings to the court not to commence actions against parties named in Suit 7228/85 and CA 10/92.
The plaintiff was adjudged a bankrupt in Bankruptcy 1523/94.

5. Formal Citations

Chua Choon Lim Robert v MN Swami and Others, Suit 223/2000, [2000] SGHC 144

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1975-04-01	Plaintiff began working for Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Ltd as a trainee agent.
1979-01-01	Differences arose between the plaintiff and his supervisors and subordinates.
1979-04-26	Six inspectors jointly wrote a letter applying for a transfer from the plaintiff’s organization.
1980-09-15	Plaintiff resigned from Great Eastern Life Assurance Company Ltd.
1985-01-01	Plaintiff brought an action in the High Court in Suit 7228/85.
1986-05-15	Plaintiff obtained an interlocutory judgment against the fifth defendant.
1991-05-01	Suit 7228/85 was heard by LP Thean J.
1992-01-07	LP Thean J dismissed the plaintiff’s action with costs.
1992-02-02	Plaintiff filed an appeal in Suit 7228/85, numbered CA 10/92.
1992-06-16	LP Thean J delivered his grounds of judgment.
1992-07-04	Registry of the High Court sent a letter stating the appeal was deemed withdrawn.
1994-01-01	Plaintiff was adjudged a bankrupt in Bankruptcy 1523/94.
1995-05-26	Plaintiff’s notice of motion to restore his appeal was dismissed.
1997-01-01	Plaintiff brought a series of applications by way of notice of motion purportedly under the same CA 10/92 to set aside the judgment in Suit 7228/95.
1997-02-21	NM 26/97 was dismissed.
1997-05-15	NM 62/97 was dismissed.
1997-08-01	NM 204/97 was dismissed.
1997-10-14	Plaintiff issued NM 272/97 under CA 10/92 against all nine defendants and others.
1998-05-08	Plaintiff gave undertakings to the court.
1998-08-11	NM 26/97 was dismissed.
1999-04-23	Plaintiff was discharged from bankruptcy.
2000-04-14	OS 473/2000 against the eighth and ninth defendants was dismissed.
2000-05-02	Plaintiff brought Suit 223/2000/R.
2000-05-24	Plaintiff filed the writ of summons and statement of claim.
2000-07-19	Plaintiff’s appeal was dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found the plaintiff's actions to be an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Recommencing litigation without leave of court
  - Striking out actions against defendants despite undertaking to court
  - Res judicata
- Related Cases:
  - [1991] 1 QB 241
  - [1990] 3WLR 347
  - [1983] QB 398
  - [1887] 37 Ch D 168 (CA)
  - [1905] 2 Ch D 306 (CA)
  - [1999] 3 WLR 671
Limitation of Actions
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's claims against several defendants were time-barred under the Limitation Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1983] QB 398

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Aggravated Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Conspiracy to injure
Gross negligence
Breach of undertaking to court

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
House of Spring Gardens Ltd v Waite	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1991] 1 QB 241	England and Wales	Cited for the principle of res judicata and abuse of process.
House of Spring Gardens Ltd v Waite	Unknown	Yes	[1990] 3WLR 347	Unknown	Cited for the principle of res judicata and abuse of process.
Ronex Properties Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1983] QB 398	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an action brought after the limitation period constitutes an abuse of process.
Grepe v Loam	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1887] 37 Ch D 168 (CA)	England and Wales	Cited for the court's inherent jurisdiction to prevent repetition of frivolous applications.
Lord Kinnaird v Field	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1905] 2 Ch D 306 (CA)	England and Wales	Cited for the court's power to restrain a party from making further frivolous applications without leave.
Ebert v Venvil & Anor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 3 WLR 671	England and Wales	Cited for the court's inherent jurisdiction to prohibit new proceedings commenced without leave of the court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 18 r 19 Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Abuse of process
Limitation Act
Res judicata
Vexatious litigant
Undertaking to court
Time-barred
Inherent jurisdiction
Interlocutory judgment
Grand conspiracy

15.2 Keywords

Striking out
Abuse of process
Limitation Act
Vexatious litigant
Civil procedure
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Practice	95
Civil Procedure	95
Abuse of Process	80
Limitation	75
Res Judicata	70
Contract Law	30
Commercial Disputes	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Limitation
Abuse of Process