Tan Yow Kon v Tan Swat Ping: Misjoinder, Striking Out, Caveats & Land Titles Act

In Tan Yow Kon v Tan Swat Ping, the Singapore High Court addressed issues of misjoinder, striking out claims, and caveat removal. The plaintiff, Tan Yow Kon, sued his siblings, including Tan Swat Ping, seeking a declaration of entitlement to partnership assets. The defendants applied to strike out the claim against some defendants and remove caveats lodged against properties. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, reversing the order striking out the claim against the Remaining Defendants, but affirmed the order for removal of the caveat against No 82, subject to the defendants providing security.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part. The order striking out the claim against the Remaining Defendants was reversed. The order for removal of the caveat against No 82 was affirmed, subject to the defendants providing security.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case regarding misjoinder of parties, striking out claims, and removal of caveats under the Land Titles Act. Judgment reserved.

1.7 Decision Date

18 July 2006

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tan Yow Kon	Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	C R Rajah, Han Kee Fong, Seethapathy s/o Mannapuri Padmanabham
Tan Swat Ping	Defendant	Individual	Claim against Remaining Defendants not struck out, Caveat removal affirmed, subject to providing security	Partial, Partial	Molly Lim, Shannon Ong, Wee Hong Lin
Tan Suat Ting	Defendant	Individual	Claim against Remaining Defendants not struck out	Partial	Molly Lim, Shannon Ong, Wee Hong Lin
Tan Wee Keong Darren	Defendant	Individual	Claim against Remaining Defendants not struck out, Caveat removal affirmed, subject to providing security	Partial, Partial	Molly Lim, Shannon Ong, Wee Hong Lin
Tan Sut Lai	Defendant	Individual	Claim against Remaining Defendants not struck out	Partial	Molly Lim, Shannon Ong, Wee Hong Lin
Tan Suat Hui Sophie	Defendant	Individual	Claim against Remaining Defendants not struck out	Partial	Molly Lim, Shannon Ong, Wee Hong Lin
Chop Joo Wan	Defendant	Partnership	Claim against Remaining Defendants not struck out	Partial	Molly Lim, Shannon Ong, Wee Hong Lin

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
C R Rajah	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Han Kee Fong	Tan Rajah & Cheah
Seethapathy s/o Mannapuri Padmanabham	S Nabham
Molly Lim	Wong Tan & Molly Lim LLC
Shannon Ong	Wong Tan & Molly Lim LLC
Wee Hong Lin	H L Wee & Co

4. Facts

The plaintiff and the defendants are siblings from a family of ten children.
The sixth defendant is a partnership through which a substantial family business was conducted.
The sixth defendant was initially formed as a sole proprietorship in 1953 by the father of the parties.
The plaintiff was admitted as a partner in 1988.
In 1994, the partnership was substantially re-organised following the mother’s death.
The plaintiff claimed he was promised $800,000 for his share of the partnership assets.
The plaintiff claims partnership funds were used to purchase and develop properties against which he lodged caveats.

5. Formal Citations

Tan Yow Kon v Tan Swat Ping and Others, Suit 102/2006, RA 159/2006, [2006] SGHC 123

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1953-01-01	Sixth defendant formed as a sole proprietorship.
1967-01-01	Sixth defendant registered as a partnership.
1984-01-01	Mr Tan Kheng Siong passed away.
1988-01-01	Plaintiff admitted as a partner.
1993-01-01	Mdm Yap Soh Choon passed away.
1994-01-01	Partnership substantially re-organised following the mother’s death.
1995-01-01	Another son left the partnership.
2002-01-01	Mr Tan Wee Bin passed away.
2004-12-31	Alleged 'Trading and Profit & Loss Account As At December 31st 2004' of the 6th Defendant provided to Plaintiff.
2006-01-01	Action commenced by the plaintiff.
2006-07-19	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Misjoinder of Parties
- Outcome: The court held that the Remaining Defendants were necessary or proper parties to the suit and ought not to have been ordered to be removed.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether defendants necessary or proper parties to plaintiff's action
  - Scope of court's discretion to remove improper or unnecessary parties to action
Striking Out Pleadings
- Outcome: The court held that a sufficient nexus had been pleaded showing the basis of the claim against all the defendants and that this was not an appropriate case for striking out the plaintiff’s action against the Remaining Defendants.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Application to strike out action against certain defendants
  - Plaintiff's statement of claim disclosing no reasonable cause of action against such defendants
  - Applicable principles
Removal of Caveats
- Outcome: The court affirmed the order for removal of the caveat against No 82, subject to the defendants providing security.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Plaintiff arguing court should not exercise discretion to order removal of caveat
  - Balance of convenience test
  - Plaintiff having interest in such property
  - Principles for exercise of court's discretion to order removal of caveat

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration of entitlement to payment of $800,000 or a share of partnership assets
Declaration that the two properties form part of the partnership assets
Account of all partnership dealings and assets
Order that the defendants indemnify him in respect of the amounts found to be due to him
Reliefs relating to the winding up of the affairs of the sixth defendant

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Promise
Entitlement to Partnership Assets

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Real Estate Law
Partnership Disputes

11. Industries

Family Business

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 374	Singapore	Cited for the guiding principle in determining what a ‘reasonable cause of action’ is under Order 18 rule 19(1)(a).
Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association	N/A	Yes	[1970] 1 All ER 1094	N/A	Cited for the definition of a reasonable cause of action.
Tajjul Ariffin bin Mustafa v Heng Cheng Hong	Supreme Court	Yes	[1993] 2 MLJ 143	Malaysia	Cited for the principles regarding the court's power to add parties under Order 15 rule 6(2)(b).
Pegang Mining Co Ltd v Choong Sam	Privy Council	Yes	[1969] 2 MLJ 52	Malaysia	Cited for the object of the rule is to enable the court to prevent injustice being done to a person whose rights will be affected by its judgment.
Abidin bin Umar v Doraisamy	High Court	Yes	[1994] 1 MLJ 617	Malaysia	Cited for the discretionary power of the court to add a co-defendant upon the application of the defendant and over the objections of the plaintiff.
Dollfus Mieg et Compagnie SA v Bank of England	High Court of England	Yes	[1951] Ch 33	England	Cited for the principle that parties with an interest in the subject matter of the action should be before the court.
People’s Parkway Development Pte Ltd v Ramanathan Yogendran	N/A	Yes	[1990] SLR 991	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the defendant was a party who could and ought to have been joined in the proceedings taken against the tenants.
TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra	High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 WLR 231	England	Cited for the principle that the presence of the second defendant was necessary to ensure that all matters in dispute were effectively dealt with.
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong	N/A	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR 819	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court’s power under O 15 r 6(2) to bring and keep the appropriate parties before it is broad indeed and may be exercised even where no cause of action is asserted against a particular defendant.
Tetra Molectric Limited v Japan Imports Limited	N/A	Yes	[1976] RPC 541	N/A	Cited for the principle that r 6(2)(b)(ii) has widened the court’s discretion to join parties to an action “to a great extent”.
Tan Soo Leng David v Wee, Satku & Kumar Pte Ltd	N/A	No	[1993] 3 SLR 569	Singapore	Cited as distinguishable because the court had already concluded that the plaintiff had no equitable interest in the property.
Ow Chor Seng v Tjinta Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR 48	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a caveat is to be equated with a statutory injunction and the balance of convenience test is applicable.
Eng Mee Yong v V Letchumanan	N/A	Yes	[1979] 2 MLJ 212	N/A	Cited for the principle that a caveat is to be equated with a statutory injunction.
American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1975] AC 396	N/A	Cited for the principles concerning the grant or removal of an interlocutory injunction as articulated in American Cyanamid.
Good Property Land Development Pte Ltd v Societe Generale	N/A	Yes	[1989] SLR 229	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it is appropriate to consider the financial means of the respective parties and their ability to meet a claim for damages.
Kumpulan Sua Betong Sdn Bhd v Dataran Segar Sdn Bhd	N/A	Yes	[1992] 1 MLJ 263	N/A	Cited for the principle that it is appropriate to consider the financial means of the respective parties and their ability to meet a claim for damages.
Sim Kwang Mui Ivy v Goh Peng Khim	N/A	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR 186	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court should consider the evidence adduced by the contending parties, and to see if it can come to any conclusion on the caveator’s claim.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Misjoinder
Striking out
Caveat
Partnership
Partnership assets
Balance of convenience
Necessary party
Proper party
Land Titles Act
Rules of Court

15.2 Keywords

Misjoinder
Striking out
Caveat
Partnership
Land Titles Act
Rules of Court

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Land Law
Partnership Law

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Land Law
Partnership Law