Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd: Security for Costs & Admission of Fresh Evidence in Interlocutory Appeals
In Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) against the High Court's decision to deny JTC's application for security for costs from Wishing Star Limited (WSL), a Hong Kong-based construction company, in their ongoing lawsuit regarding a terminated construction contract. JTC also sought to introduce fresh evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed both the appeal and the motion to admit fresh evidence, citing JTC's delay in applying for security for costs and the overlap between JTC's defense and counterclaim. The court found that ordering security for costs would be unjust in the circumstances.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding security for costs and admission of fresh evidence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, citing delay and counterclaim overlap.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jurong Town Corp | Appellant, Defendant | Statutory Board | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Wishing Star Ltd | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- WSL, a Hong Kong construction company, was awarded a $54m contract by JTC for façade works.
- JTC terminated the contract, alleging material misrepresentations in WSL's tender submission.
- WSL commenced an action against JTC for wrongful termination and payment for work done.
- JTC counterclaimed for damages suffered due to the alleged misrepresentations.
- JTC applied for security for costs, arguing WSL was ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction.
- The application for security for costs was made after the trial date was set and substantial work had been undertaken.
- JTC sought to introduce fresh evidence of alleged dishonesty by WSL's managing director.
5. Formal Citations
- Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd, CA 126/2003, [2004] SGCA 14
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| WSL started work on the Biopolis Project. | |
| JTC awarded WSL a contract for the Biopolis Project. | |
| JTC terminated the contract with WSL. | |
| WSL commenced action against JTC. | |
| Registrar set trial date for 3 November 2002. | |
| JTC requested security for costs from WSL. | |
| JTC made a formal application for security for costs. | |
| Judge dismissed JTC's application for security for costs. | |
| Trial commenced in the High Court. | |
| JTC lodged its appeal to the Court of Appeal. | |
| Trial hearing adjourned. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal. | |
| Resumed hearing scheduled to start. |
7. Legal Issues
- Security for Costs
- Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal, declining to order WSL to furnish security for costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Admission of Fresh Evidence
- Outcome: The court disallowed the admission of fresh evidence.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Payment for work done
- Damages for wrongful termination
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Wrongful Termination
- Quantum Meruit
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Keary Developments Ltd v Tarmac Construction Ltd | Not specified in document | Yes | [1995] 3 All ER 534 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court has complete discretion in ordering security for costs. |
| Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) Ltd | Not specified in document | Yes | [1987] 1 All ER 1074 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court has a general discretion to award or refuse security for costs, considering all circumstances. |
| B J Crabtree (Insulation) Ltd v GPT Communication Systems Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (1990) 59 BLR 43 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that there is no rule of thumb regarding the grant or refusal of an order for security and that costs incurred in defending a claim may be regarded as costs necessary to prosecute a counterclaim. |
| Hutchison Telephone (UK) Ltd v Ultimate Response Ltd | Not specified in document | No | [1993] BCLC 307 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that security should not be awarded where the counterclaim is essentially akin to the defense to the claim. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Not specified in document | No | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the principles for admitting fresh evidence, noting that the strict principles do not apply in this case. |
| Electra Private Equity Partners v KPMG Peat Marwick | Not specified in document | Yes | [2001] 1 BCLC 589 | England and Wales | Cited to caution against parties attempting to retrieve lost ground in interlocutory appeals with evidence that could have been presented earlier. |
| Jurong Town Corporation v Wishing Star Ltd | High Court | No | [2004] 1 SLR 1 | Singapore | The High Court decision that is being appealed in this case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 57 r 13(2) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Order 23 r 1(1)(a) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Security for costs
- Interlocutory appeal
- Fresh evidence
- Wrongful termination
- Material misrepresentation
- Counterclaim
- Ordinarily resident
- Balance of justice
- Delay in application
- Overlap between claim and counterclaim
15.2 Keywords
- security for costs
- interlocutory appeals
- fresh evidence
- civil procedure
- construction contract
- wrongful termination
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 90 |
| Security for Costs | 85 |
| Appeal | 80 |
| Costs | 70 |
| Interlocutory Appeals | 60 |
| Civil Litigation | 50 |
| Misrepresentation | 30 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
| Breach of Contract | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Costs
- Appeals