Ho Kian Cheong v Ho Kian Guan: Application for Further and Better Particulars

In Ho Kian Cheong v Ho Kian Guan and Others, the Singapore High Court heard preliminary objections raised by the third defendant against the plaintiff's application for further and better particulars. The court, presided over by Assistant Registrar Vincent Leow, dismissed the preliminary objections, holding that the previous order for costs did not constitute a decision on the substantive merits of the application. The court then proceeded to hear the substantive application and made certain orders.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Preliminary objections dismissed; application for further and better particulars heard and certain orders made.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed preliminary objections to an application for further and better particulars, clarifying the effect of judicial silence.

1.7 Decision Date

19 May 2004

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ho Kian Cheong	Plaintiff	Individual	Preliminary objections dismissed	Won	Lee Eng Beng of Rajah and Tann Low Poh Ling of Rajah and Tann
Ho Kian Guan	Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
Ho Kian Hock	Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
Chan Chin Chin	Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral	Daniel Tan Choon Huat of Wee Swee Teow and Co
Ho Yeow Khoon and Sons Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Neutral	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Vincent Leow	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lee Eng Beng	Rajah and Tann
Low Poh Ling	Rajah and Tann
Daniel Tan Choon Huat	Wee Swee Teow and Co

4. Facts

Plaintiff applied for further and better particulars from the third defendant.
The third defendant provided the particulars after the plaintiff filed the application.
At the first hearing, the parties only argued on the issue of costs.
The court fixed costs at $200 at the first hearing.
The plaintiff filed a second application for further and better particulars, deeming the particulars provided as deficient.
The third defendant raised preliminary objections at the second hearing.

5. Formal Citations

Ho Kian Cheong v Ho Kian Guan and Others, Suit 713/2003, SIC 589/2004, [2004] SGHC 104

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-10-17	Plaintiff's solicitors requested further and better particulars from the third defendant's solicitors.
2003-12-10	Plaintiff filed an application for further and better particulars.
2003-12-11	Third defendant sent her reply to the request for further and better particulars.
2003-12-22	First hearing on Summons-in-Chambers 7579 of 2003.
2004-02-12	Second hearing on Summons-in-Chambers 589 of 2004.
2004-05-20	Decision date.

7. Legal Issues

Res Judicata Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that res judicata estoppel did not apply because no decision on the substantive merits of the application had been made at the first hearing.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2003] 3 SLR 486
  - [1980] Ch 590
  - (1981) 131 DLR 352
Functus Officio
- Outcome: The court held that the doctrine of functus officio was not applicable as the court was not asked to amend its previous decision as to costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - (1941) 3 All ER 417
Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that there was no abuse of process as there was no pre-existing order on the same subject matter.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1843-1860] All ER 378
Approbation and Reprobation
- Outcome: The court held that the principle of approbation and reprobation was not applicable as the plaintiff's actions were not inconsistent.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1941] AC 1

8. Remedies Sought

Further and better particulars

9. Cause of Actions

No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Re VGM Holdings Ltd	N/A	Yes	(1941) 3 All ER 417	England and Wales	Cited regarding the doctrine of functus officio.
Re Harrison’s Share under a Settlement	N/A	Yes	[1955] 1 All ER 185	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a judge can withdraw, alter, or modify an order until it is drawn up, passed, and entered.
Tan Yeow Khoon and another v Tan Yeow Tat and others	N/A	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 486	Singapore	Cited for the applicable law on res judicata.
Midland Bank Trust Co Ltd and Another v Green and Another	N/A	Yes	[1980] Ch 590	England and Wales	Cited for the applicable law on res judicata.
R v Duhamel (No 2)	N/A	Yes	(1981) 131 DLR 352	Canada	Cited for the applicable law on res judicata.
Chiarapurk Jack & Ors v Haw Par Brothers International Ltd & Anor and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 285	Singapore	Cited for the principle that costs are awarded at the discretion of the court.
Rank Xerox (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Ultra Marketing Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 73	Singapore	Cited for the definition of an interlocutory matter.
Bozson v Altrincham Urban District Council	N/A	Yes	[1903] 1 KB 547	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of an interlocutory matter.
Joseph Lynch Land Co Ltd v Lynch	N/A	Yes	[1995] 1 NZLR 37	New Zealand	Cited regarding the application of res judicata estoppel to interlocutory applications.
Transpac Capital Pte Ltd v Lam Soon (Thailand) Co Ltd & Others	N/A	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 264	Singapore	Cited regarding the application of res judicata estoppel to interlocutory applications.
Carl-Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner and Keeler Ltd (No 2)	N/A	Yes	[1967] 1 AC 853	England and Wales	Cited regarding the policy concerns behind res judicata estoppel.
Hall v Nominal Defendant	N/A	Yes	Hall v Nominal Defendant [1966] 117 CLR 423	Australia	Cited for the principle that dismissal of an interlocutory application does not bar a further application on the ground of res judicata estoppel.
Carr v Finance Corporation of Australia Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1980-1981] 147 CLR 246	Australia	Cited regarding the effect of refusal of an application.
WT Lamb & Sons v Rider	N/A	Yes	[1948] 2 KB 331	England and Wales	Cited regarding the conditions for granting a subsequent application after dismissal of a similar summons.
Techmex Far East Pte Ltd v Logicraft Products Manufacturing Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 483	Singapore	Cited regarding whether a second Order 14 application may be made after the first has been dismissed.
United Commercial Bank v Yap Cheng Hai and Others	N/A	Yes	[1978-1979] SLR 535	Singapore	Cited regarding whether a second Order 14 application may be made after leave to defend had been granted.
United Australia Limited v Barclays Bank Limited	N/A	Yes	[1941] AC 1	England and Wales	Cited for the principle of approbation and reprobation.
Tinklet v Hilder	N/A	Yes	(1849) 4 Exch 187	England and Wales	Cited for the proposition that once a party has accepted costs under the order, he cannot afterwards challenge the order.
Henderson v Henderson	N/A	Yes	[1843-1860] All ER 378	England and Wales	Cited regarding abuse of process.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Further and better particulars
Preliminary objections
Functus officio
Res judicata estoppel
Abuse of process
Approbation and reprobation
Interlocutory application
Judicial silence

15.2 Keywords

further and better particulars
res judicata
functus officio
civil procedure
singapore
high court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Practice	90
Res Judicata	80
Further and better particulars	75
Civil Procedure	70
Costs	60
Evidence	50
Functus Officio	40
Abuse of Process	30

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Applications and motions