Johnson Pacific v Hogberg: Costs, Pleadings & Particulars in Breach of Contract & Fiduciary Duty Claim

In Johnson Pacific Pte Ltd v Hogberg Fred Rickard Robin William and Others, the High Court of Singapore heard four registrar's appeals concerning a claim by Johnson Pacific against Hogberg, Hydromaster Pte Ltd, and Pipe Care Pte Ltd for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duties, and conspiracy. The defendants requested further and better particulars, which were largely disallowed by the assistant registrar. Rubin J allowed the defendants' appeal in part, requiring the plaintiff to provide further particulars on specific aspects of their claim, and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal regarding costs. The court ordered the defendants to pay three-quarters of the costs of the appeals.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Defendants' appeal disallowed in part; Plaintiff's appeal on costs dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case involving Johnson Pacific, Hogberg, and others, concerning costs and pleadings in a breach of contract and fiduciary duty claim. The court addressed requests for further particulars.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Johnson Pacific Pte LtdPlaintiff, RespondentCorporationAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
Hogberg Fred Rickard Robin WilliamDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal Disallowed in PartPartial
Hydromaster Pte LtdDefendantCorporationAppeal Disallowed in PartPartial
Pipe Care Pte Ltd formerly known as Veltrup Asia Pacific Pte LtdDefendantCorporationAppeal Disallowed in PartPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
MPH RubinJYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Vijay Kumar RaiV K Rai and Partners
Wendy LeongAsiaLegal LLC
Desmond LeeHaridass Ho and Partners

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff, Johnson Pacific, is in the business of trading, supplying, and installing fluid handling products and providing engineering services.
  2. The first defendant, Hogberg, was the plaintiff's managing director until 24 March 2003.
  3. The second defendant, Hydromaster, is allegedly in direct competition with the plaintiff.
  4. The third defendant, Pipe Care, allegedly owns assets for the use of the second defendant.
  5. The plaintiff alleges that the first defendant breached his contract and fiduciary duties.
  6. The plaintiff alleges that the first defendant manipulated the plaintiff's financial records.
  7. The defendants requested further and better particulars from the plaintiff.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Johnson Pacific Pte Ltd v Hogberg Fred Rickard Robin William and Others, Suit 1154/2003, RA 15/2004, 17/2004, 18/2004, 19/2004, [2004] SGHC 163

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Termination of the first defendant's appointment as one of the directors and as the Managing Director of the Plaintiff
First defendant's control of the plaintiff company ended
Documents provided by way of discovery
First defendant's solicitor abandoned 58 requests
Second and third defendants’ solicitor also abandoned 144 requests
Registrar’s appeals heard
Registrar’s appeals heard
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Costs
    • Outcome: The court upheld the assistant registrar's decision that there be no order as to costs for the defendants' applications.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court found most of the defendants' requests for further and better particulars to be harassing and oppressive, disallowing the appeal save for limited items.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • relevance of requests
      • validity of requests
      • oppressiveness of requests
  3. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court considered the pleadings related to the breach of contract claim in the context of the requests for further and better particulars.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court considered the pleadings related to the breach of fiduciary duty claim in the context of the requests for further and better particulars.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Account
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duties
  • Breach of Trust
  • Fraud
  • Conspiracy
  • Knowing Receipt of Moneys
  • Breach of Director’s Duties under s 157 of the Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed)
  • Enticement of the Plaintiff’s Employees
  • Unlawful Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tullio v MaoroHigh CourtYes[1994] 2 SLR 489SingaporeCited for principles regarding costs orders, referencing Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2).
Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2)UnknownYes[1993] 1 All ER 232England and WalesCited for principles regarding costs orders, as adopted in Tullio v Maoro.
Tan Hoe Kock v Ali Akarbara bin MangudinUnknownYes[1997] 4 MLJ 311MalaysiaCited for the principle that particulars should not be given as of right and should not be used for harassment or fishing expeditions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Order 18 r 12(1)(a) and (b) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Further and better particulars
  • Registrar's appeal
  • Breach of contract
  • Breach of fiduciary duty
  • Statement of claim
  • Defence
  • Costs
  • Pleadings
  • Harassment
  • Oppressiveness

15.2 Keywords

  • costs
  • pleadings
  • particulars
  • breach of contract
  • fiduciary duty
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Fraud and Deceit80
Civil Practice75
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means70
Fiduciary Duties70
Company Law65
Business Litigation60
Corporate Litigation60
Breach of Trust60
Disclosure of documents60
Contract Law50
Duty to Account50
Engineering Services40

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Corporate Law