Afro Asia Shipping v Haridass Ho: Striking Out Action & Interpretation of Consent Order
In Afro Asia Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd v Haridass Ho & Partners and Another, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Afro Asia Shipping's appeal against the striking out of their claim. The case concerned a dispute over the interpretation of a consent order made by the Court of Appeal regarding the division of assets between the Bajumi and Tan families, shareholders of Afro Asia Shipping. The court found that Afro Asia Shipping's fresh action was an abuse of process, as the proper recourse was to seek clarification from the Court of Appeal under the liberty to apply provision in the original consent order.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dispute over consent order interpretation led Afro Asia Shipping to initiate a fresh action, which was struck out as an abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Afro Asia Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Kenneth Tan SC |
| Haridass Ho & Partners | Defendant, Respondent | Partnership | Claim Dismissed | Won | Haridass Ajaib |
| UOB Kay Hian Pte Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Won | Chan Kia Pheng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kenneth Tan SC | Kenneth Tan Partnership |
| Haridass Ajaib | Haridass Ho & Partners |
| Chan Kia Pheng | Khattar Wong & Partners |
4. Facts
- Afro-Asia Shipping Company (Pte) Ltd owned a building called Afro-Asia Building.
- Haridass Ho & Partners acted for the Bajumi family, shareholders in Afro-Asia Shipping.
- UOB Kay Hian Pte Ltd is a local securities company.
- The Bajumis sued the plaintiffs in OS No. 727 of 1996.
- The Court of Appeal made consent orders on 18 March 2002 regarding the sale of assets.
- The plaintiffs commenced this suit on 9 July 2002, alleging that the first defendants held 8.7 million Ssangyong shares on trust.
- The first defendants applied to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim.
5. Formal Citations
- Afro Asia Shipping Co (Pte) Ltd v Haridass Ho & Partners and Another, Suit 807/2002, [2003] SGHC 21
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Afro-Asia Shipping Company (Pte) Ltd founded. | |
| Bajumis sued the plaintiffs (and the Tans) in OS No. 727 of 1996. | |
| Proceedings instituted against the same parties under s 216 of the Companies Act, in Companies Winding Up No. 162 of 1996. | |
| Proceedings consolidated by Order of Court. | |
| Hearing before Choo JC. | |
| Appeals filed in Civil Appeals No. 600066 and 600067 of 2001 respectively by the Bajumis and the Tans. | |
| Court of Appeal made consent orders. | |
| Application made by the Bajumis under the liberty to apply provision. | |
| Plaintiffs commenced this suit. | |
| Court of Appeal made additional orders. | |
| Assistant Registrar ordered the second defendants to amend their statement of claim in Suit No. S742 of 2002/H. | |
| First defendants applied to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim. | |
| Plaintiffs filed summons-in-chambers entered no. 2916 of 2002 for summary judgment against both defendants. | |
| Application was granted an order in terms by the Assistant Registrar. | |
| Assistant Registrar ordered Ssangyong Cement to pay interest on the dividend ($508,950) declared on 8.7 million Ssangyong shares. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court upheld the decision to strike out the plaintiffs' claim, finding it to be an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- No reasonable cause of action
- Frivolous or vexatious action
- Abuse of process
- Interpretation of Consent Order
- Outcome: The court determined that the plaintiffs should have sought clarification from the Court of Appeal regarding the interpretation of the consent order, rather than initiating a fresh action.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that defendants held shares on trust for plaintiffs
- Declaration that altered form was null and void
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Trust
- Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Securities
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin & Ors | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 374 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of determining 'what a reasonable cause of action' is under O 18 r 19(1)(a) and for explaining the phrase 'abuse of the process of the Court'. |
| Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association | N/A | Yes | [1970] 1 All ER 1094 | N/A | Cited for defining a reasonable cause of action as one with some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleading are considered. |
| Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1991] SLR 798 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts will afford a litigant the right to institute a bona fide claim and prosecute it in the usual way, unless the case is wholly and clearly unarguable. |
| Dyson v Attorney-General | N/A | Yes | [1911] 1 KB 410 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff is not to be 'driven from the judgment seat'. |
| Tan Soo Leng David v Wee, Satku & Kumar Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR 481 | Singapore | Cited for restating the principle that courts will afford a litigant the right to institute a bona fide claim. |
| Goh Koon Suan v Heng Gek Kiau & Ors | N/A | Yes | [1991] 2 MLJ 307 | Malaysia | Cited for defining 'frivolous or vexatious' to mean cases which are obviously unsustainable or wrong. |
| Lornho v Fayed (No. 5) | N/A | Yes | [1993] 1 WLR 1489 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an action brought for an ulterior or collateral purpose may be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19(1) | Singapore |
| Companies Act Cap 50 s 130D(1) | Singapore |
| Companies Act Cap 50 s 195(4) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Consent Order
- Liberty to Apply
- Striking Out
- Beneficial Ownership
- Ssangyong Shares
- Trust
- Abuse of Process
15.2 Keywords
- Striking Out
- Consent Order
- Civil Procedure
- Singapore
- Shares
- Trust
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Striking Out