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

In a construction dispute before the High Court of Singapore, L & M Concrete Specialists Pte Ltd appealed against an order for United Eng Contractors Pte Ltd to provide security for costs. L&M had filed a counterclaim against United Eng, arguing United Eng was insolvent and unable to pay costs if L&M succeeded. Judith Prakash J allowed United Eng's appeal, setting aside the security for costs order, finding L&M's application was late and appeared designed to prevent United Eng from pursuing a valid claim.

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 in a construction dispute. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order for security for costs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
L & M Concrete Specialists Pte LtdAppellant, DefendantCorporationAppeal LostLostRamalingam Kasi
United Eng Contractors Pte LtdRespondent, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal AllowedWonIntekhab Khan, Desmond Ong

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

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

4. Facts

  1. United Eng sued L&M for unpaid monies in Suit 1523 of 1998.
  2. L&M filed a counterclaim in Suit 1523, which was struck out with liberty to file a fresh suit.
  3. L&M filed the current action in February 2000 for sums in excess of $300,000.
  4. United Eng filed a counterclaim against L&M for approximately $1,300,000.
  5. L&M filed a counterclaim to counterclaim for damages of about $2,500,000.
  6. L&M applied for security for costs in June 2001, which was initially granted.
  7. United Eng appealed the order for security for costs.

5. Formal Citations

  1. L & M Concrete Specialists Pte Ltd v United Eng Contractors Pte Ltd, Suit 600131/2000, RA 600137/2001, [2001] SGHC 280

6. Timeline

DateEvent
United Eng commenced Suit 1523 of 1998 against L&M for unpaid monies.
Trial for Suit 1523 of 1998 was heard.
L&M filed action against United Eng.
L&M filed amended reply and defence to counterclaim and counterclaim to counterclaim.
Summons for directions was heard.
Original hearing dates vacated on L&M's application.
L&M filed an application for security for costs.
Application for security for costs was heard; L&M was granted security.
Appeal heard and allowed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Security for Costs
    • Outcome: The court held that the discretion should not be exercised so as to deprive United Eng of its day in court and 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
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Delay Damages

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Law

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

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

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

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

15.2 Keywords

  • Security for costs
  • Construction dispute
  • Insolvency
  • Counterclaim
  • Singapore High Court

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Construction Dispute
  • Security for Costs

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Construction Law