United Engineers v Lee Lip Hiong: Summary Judgment Time Limit and Amendment of Pleadings

In United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Lee Lip Hiong, the High Court of Singapore addressed appeals concerning the time limit for summary judgment applications under Order 14 Rule 14 of the Rules of Court. United Engineers, the plaintiff/appellant, sought to recover secret commissions from Lee Lip Hiong, Tan King Hiang, and Sin Yong Constructor Pte Ltd, the defendants/respondents. The court, presided over by Tay Yong Kwang J, dismissed the appeals, holding that the time bar for summary judgment applications is absolute and cannot be extended, and that amendments to pleadings do not postpone the deemed closure of pleadings, thus not extending the time limit. The third defendant had filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff for payment for works done on the contracts in question.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff’s appeals dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed whether amending pleadings extends the time limit for summary judgment applications and if the court can extend this limit.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
United Engineers (Singapore) Pte LtdPlaintiff, AppellantCorporationAppeals dismissed with costsLost
Tan King HiangDefendant, RespondentIndividualSuccessful in resisting appealWon
Lee Lip HiongDefendant, RespondentIndividualSuccessful in resisting appealWon
Sin Yong Constructor Pte LtdDefendant, RespondentCorporationSuccessful in resisting appealWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Adrian WongRajah and Tann
Andre YeapRajah and Tann
H T SamH T Sam and Co
Foo Yuk LinFoo Chia Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff sued defendants to recover secret commissions allegedly paid to the first defendant.
  2. The first defendant was the plaintiff's former engineering manager.
  3. The first defendant allegedly secured contracts for himself and the third defendant through the commissions.
  4. The third defendant filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff for payment for works done.
  5. Pleadings were deemed closed on 9 March 2004.
  6. Plaintiff applied to extend time to file for summary judgment, citing the need for further evidence.
  7. The third defendant also applied for an extension of time, citing voluminous documents and the unavailability of a director.
  8. The third defendant amended its counterclaim by adding one cent to the amount claimed.
  9. The plaintiff and third defendant believed the amendments re-opened the pleadings and revived their right to file Order 14 applications.
  10. The first defendant applied to set aside the plaintiff’s and the third defendant’s applications under Order 14.

5. Formal Citations

  1. United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Lee Lip Hiong, Suit 13/2004, RA 202/2004, 203/2004, [2004] SGHC 190
  2. United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Lee Lip Hiong, , [2004] SGHC 153
  3. United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Lee Lip Hiong, , [2004] SGHC 169

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First defendant pleaded guilty in District Court and was sentenced to 18 months’ imprisonment.
Plaintiff commenced action against the defendants.
Pleadings in the action were deemed to be closed.
Plaintiff applied to extend time to file and serve a summons for summary judgment.
Third defendant applied for an extension of time to file and serve its summons for summary judgment on its counterclaim.
Third defendant applied to amend its Counterclaim.
Leave to amend counterclaim was granted.
Plaintiff applied for summary judgment.
Third defendant applied for summary judgment on its counterclaim.
First defendant applied to set aside the plaintiff’s and the third defendant’s applications under Order 14.
Assistant Registrar set aside the plaintiff’s and the third defendant’s Order 14 applications.
Plaintiff filed appeals against the Assistant Registrar’s decisions.
Appeals heard and dismissed.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Time Limit for Summary Judgment Applications
    • Outcome: The court held that the time bar for summary judgment applications is absolute and cannot be extended by the court or by consent of the parties.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Extension of time limit by court
      • Extension of time limit by consent of parties
  2. Effect of Amendment of Pleadings on Deemed Closure of Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court held that amendments to pleadings do not postpone the deemed closure of pleadings and do not extend the time limit for summary judgment applications.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Postponement of deemed closure of pleadings
      • Extension of time limit for summary judgment applications

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Recovery of secret commissions

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Gregory v Torquay CorporationEnglish Court of AppealYes[1911] 2 KB 556England and WalesCited for the view that the expression “statute of limitations” could not be confined to statutes which by their title were so styled.
Bannister v SGB plcEnglish Court of AppealYes[1997] 4 All ER 129England and WalesCited to support the view that the trigger date for automatic directions is not altered if a defence is later amended.
Freeman v ParkerCanadian High CourtYes[1956] OWN 561CanadaCited for the proposition that amendments to pleadings postpone the actual closure of pleadings, but distinguished by the Assistant Registrar.
Samsung Corp v Chinese Chamber Realty Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2004] 1 SLR 382SingaporeCited for the principle that no court should arrogate unto itself a power to act contrary to the Rules.
Chun Thong Ping v Soh Kok HongHigh CourtYes[2003] 3 SLR 204SingaporeCited by the plaintiff to support its contention that pleadings are re-opened upon amendment, but distinguished by the court.
Techmex Far East Pte Ltd v Logicraft Products Manufacturing Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1998] 1 SLR 483SingaporeCited for the principle that a second Order 14 application could be made after the first was dismissed if the factual or legal basis of the claim was altered because of amendments to the pleadings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Order 14 r 14 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
Order 18 r 20(1) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
Order 3 r 4(3) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore
O 92 r 4 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Summary judgment
  • Pleadings
  • Deemed closure of pleadings
  • Extension of time
  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Secret commissions
  • Counterclaim
  • Rules of Court
  • Inherent powers of the court

15.2 Keywords

  • Summary judgment
  • Pleadings
  • Time limit
  • Amendment
  • Singapore
  • Civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice90
Civil Procedure90
Commercial Disputes20
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Summary Judgment
  • Amendment of Pleadings