Ooi Ching Ling Shirley v Just Gems Inc: Security for Costs Appeal
In Ooi Ching Ling Shirley v Just Gems Inc, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an application by Just Gems Inc for further security for costs in an appeal by Shirley Ooi. The court, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA and Tan Lee Meng J, granted the application, ordering Ooi to furnish an additional $30,000 in security, citing her foreign residency, conduct suggesting an intent to evade judgment debts, and the potential difficulties in enforcing a costs order against her. The underlying claim involved a contract dispute over shares in Pacific Rim Trading Ltd.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Respondents’ application granted.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal ordered Shirley Ooi to furnish further security for costs, considering her foreign residency and conduct indicating resistance to satisfying judgment debts.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Just Gems Inc | Respondent | Corporation | Application granted | Won | |
| Ooi Ching Ling Shirley | Appellant | Individual | Further security for costs to be furnished | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Shirley Ooi is a shareholder in Pacific Rim Trading Ltd, which held shares in Agate Technologies Inc.
- JGI was incorporated by Jamilah to hold Agate shares.
- Shirley Ooi offered to sell shares in Agate and Pacific Rim to Jamilah.
- Jamilah claimed to have paid US$550,000 for the shares, while Shirley Ooi asserted only US$450,000 was paid.
- JGI instituted action seeking a declaration that the contract was void and for the return of US$550,000.
- The trial judge found the contract void and ordered Shirley Ooi to return the US$550,000 to JGI.
- Shirley Ooi appealed the decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Ooi Ching Ling Shirley v Just Gems Inc, CA 15/2002, NM 26/2002, [2002] SGCA 38
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Shirley Ooi offered to sell 750,000 shares in Agate to Jamilah Binti Abu Bakar. | |
| Shirley Ooi offered Jamilah about 22% of Pacific Rim shares for US$500,000. | |
| Jamilah paid US$200,000 into Shirley Ooi’s Citibank account. | |
| Jamilah paid US$250,000 into Shirley Ooi’s Citibank account. | |
| Jamilah paid US$100,000 into Shirley Ooi’s Citibank account. | |
| Notice of appeal lodged. | |
| JGI’s solicitors requested Shirley Ooi to pay the judgment sum. | |
| JGI served a copy of an order to examine the judgment debtor on Shirley Ooi’s Singapore solicitors. | |
| PL sought to serve a garnishee application on Shirley Ooi’s solicitors. | |
| PL wrote to AL asking for further security for the costs of the appeal. | |
| JGI applied by motion for further security. | |
| Motion dismissed by the single Judge. | |
| Present motion filed pursuant to s 36(3) of SCJA. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Security for Costs
- Outcome: The court ordered the appellant to furnish further security for costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Applicable test for granting further security for costs
- Considerations in granting applications for further security for costs
- Whether circumstances warrant making order for further security
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that contract is void
- Return of US$550,000
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Failure of Consideration
10. Practice Areas
- Appellate Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De Bry v Fitzgerald | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] 1 All ER 560 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that foreign residency warrants security for costs if enforcing a costs order would cause undue delay and expense. |
| Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1987] 1 WLR 420 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a foreign plaintiff or appellant should furnish security to ensure funds are available within the jurisdiction to enforce costs orders. |
| Lek Swee Hua v American Express International Inc | N/A | No | [1991] 2 MLJ 151 | Malaysia | Cited to illustrate a case where difficulties in effecting service led to an order for security for costs. |
| Malayan Banking Bhd v Focal Finance Ltd | High Court | No | [1999] 3 SLR 229 | Singapore | Cited to show that enforcing a writ of seizure and sale against a jointly owned property would entail difficulties and delays. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court O 57 r 3(4) | Singapore |
| Rules of the Supreme Court (1965) [UK] O 59 r 10(5) | United Kingdom |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Security for costs
- Foreign residency
- Enforcement of judgment
- Undue delay
- Evasive conduct
- Joint tenancy
- Reciprocal enforcement of judgments
15.2 Keywords
- security for costs
- appeal
- foreign resident
- Singapore
- civil procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Costs | 90 |
| Enforcement of Foreign Judgments | 40 |
| Asset Recovery | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Appeals