L & M Concrete Specialists v United Eng Contractors: Security for Costs Application

In a dispute between L & M Concrete Specialists Pte Ltd and United Eng Contractors Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding an order for United Eng to provide security for costs. L & M, the main contractor, sought security for costs from United Eng, the sub-contractor, due to United Eng's insolvency. The High Court allowed United Eng's appeal, setting aside the order for security for costs, finding that L & M's application was made at a late stage and appeared oppressive.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding security for costs. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order for United Eng to provide security for costs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
L & M Concrete Specialists Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationAppeal LostLost
United Eng Contractors Pte LtdRespondent, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal WonWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ramalingam KasiRaj Kumar & Rama
Intekhab KhanJ Koh & Co
Desmond OngJ Koh & Co

4. Facts

  1. United Eng commenced Suit 1523/98 against L&M for unpaid moneys.
  2. L&M filed a counterclaim in Suit 1523/98, which was struck out.
  3. L&M filed this action in February 2000 for sums in excess of $300,000.
  4. United Eng filed a counterclaim against L&M for approximately $1.3m.
  5. L&M filed a counterclaim to counterclaim for damages of about $2.5m.
  6. L&M applied for security for costs on 26 June 2001.
  7. United Eng was insolvent and no longer in business.

5. Formal Citations

  1. L & M Concrete Specialists Pte Ltd v United Eng Contractors Pte Ltd, Suit 600131/2000 , RA 600137/2001, [2001] SGHC 279

6. Timeline

DateEvent
United Eng commenced Suit 1523/98 against L&M for unpaid moneys due in respect of the Hilltop project.
Trial for Suit 1523/98 was heard; judgment entered in favor of United Eng.
L&M filed this action against United Eng.
L&M filed an amended reply and defence to counterclaim and counterclaim to counterclaim.
Summons for directions was heard.
Original trial dates vacated on L&M's application.
L&M filed an application for security for costs.
L&M was granted security in the sum of $50,000.
Application for security for costs heard.
Appeal allowed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Security for Costs
    • Outcome: The court set aside the order for security for costs.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Lateness of application
      • Oppressiveness of application

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Security for costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Law

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co v TriplanN/AYes[1973] 1 QB 609N/ACited as the basis for the court to take all circumstances into account in deciding how its discretion is to be exercised.
Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co v TriplanN/AYes[1973] 2 All ER 273N/ACited as the basis for the court to take all circumstances into account in deciding how its discretion is to be exercised.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
s 388 Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security for costs
  • Insolvency
  • Oppressive application
  • Lateness of application
  • Bona fide claim
  • Prospect of success

15.2 Keywords

  • Security for costs
  • Insolvency
  • Construction
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Costs80
Civil Practice75
Company Law60
Contract Law50
Bankruptcy40

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Security for Costs
  • Construction Dispute