Changhe International Investments v Dexia BIL Asia: Striking Out for Abuse of Process
In Changhe International Investments Pte Ltd and Another v Dexia BIL Asia Singapore Ltd and Others, the High Court of Singapore allowed Dexia's appeal, striking out Changhe's second suit as an abuse of process. The second suit mirrored a prior claim (Suit 1725 of 1999) that had been dismissed due to Changhe's failure to comply with a peremptory order. The court found Changhe's repeated failure to adhere to court orders, both in the original and subsequent suits, warranted striking out the claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court struck out Changhe's second action against Dexia, finding it an abuse of process after the first action was dismissed for non-compliance.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Changhe International Investments Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Yangyun | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Dexia BIL Asia Singapore Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal allowed | Won | |
| Wong Sue Jean | Defendant | Individual | Writ Lapsed | Dismissed | |
| Highgold Fortune Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Writ Lapsed | Dismissed |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leslie Yeo Choon Hsien | Leslie Yeo and Associates |
| Sarjit Singh SC | Shook Lin and Bok |
4. Facts
- Changhe commenced Suit 1725 of 1999 against Banque Luxembourg claiming US$10m.
- The first suit was dismissed due to Changhe's failure to file a list of documents by the stipulated deadline.
- Changhe did not appeal the dismissal of the first suit.
- Changhe commenced a second suit against Dexia, including additional defendants.
- The second suit concerned the same causes of action as the first suit.
- Changhe failed to file an affidavit explaining its non-compliance with the court order in the first suit.
- Changhe allowed the Writ to lapse against the additional defendants in the second suit.
5. Formal Citations
- Changhe International Investments Pte Ltd and Another v Dexia BIL Asia Singapore Ltd and Others, Suit 63/2004, RA 297/2004, [2005] SGHC 12
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First suit commenced by Changhe against Banque Luxembourg. | |
| First suit dismissed due to Changhe's breach of an 'unless order'. | |
| Changhe's application to set aside the dismissal order was dismissed. | |
| Changhe's appeal against the judicial commissioner's decision was dismissed by the Court of Appeal. | |
| Changhe issued a new Writ of Summons against Dexia. | |
| Court ordered Changhe to file and serve their affidavit in reply by 20 September 2004. | |
| Dexia's solicitors noted Changhe's failure to file their affidavit by the deadline. | |
| Appeal allowed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that the second suit was an abuse of process because it resurrected a dismissed claim without a satisfactory explanation for the failure to comply with the original court order.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Re-litigation of dismissed claims
- Failure to comply with court orders
- Related Cases:
- [1981] 1 WLR 1389
- [1981] QB 115
- [1999] 1 SLR 750
8. Remedies Sought
- Striking out of Statement of Claim
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Mandate
- Breach of Express Instructions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Janov v Morris | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981] 1 WLR 1389 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the court should be cautious in allowing a second action to continue when the first action was dismissed for failure to comply with a peremptory order. |
| Samuels v Linzi Dresses Ltd | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1981] QB 115 | England and Wales | Cited to emphasize the importance of complying with court orders, especially those related to timelines for pleadings and particulars. |
| Syed Mohamed Abdul Muthaliff v Arjan Bhisham Chotrani | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 750 | Singapore | Endorsed the cautious approach in Janov v Morris regarding second actions after dismissal of the first for non-compliance. |
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
- Abuse of process
- Peremptory order
- Unless order
- Striking out
- Re-litigation
- Non-compliance
- Affidavit
- Writ of Summons
15.2 Keywords
- abuse of process
- striking out
- civil procedure
- court orders
- re-litigation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 90 |
| Abuse of Process | 70 |
| Judgments and Orders | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Litigation
- Banking Law