Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp: Amendment of Pleadings and Mitigation of Loss

In Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Wishing Star Ltd against the assistant registrar's refusal to grant leave to amend its pleadings to include the issue of Jurong Town Corp's failure to mitigate its loss. The suit originated from a contract dispute where misrepresentation was a preliminary issue. Justice Choo Han Teck allowed the appeal, finding that Jurong Town Corp would not suffer undue prejudice by the amendment, as mitigation was a foreseeable issue given the nature of the counterclaim for breach of contract.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding refusal to amend pleadings to include failure to mitigate loss. The court allowed the appeal, finding no prejudice to the defendant.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Jurong Town CorpDefendant, RespondentStatutory BoardAppeal DismissedLost
Wishing Star LtdPlaintiff, AppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ho Chien MienAllen & Gledhill
Jagateesan SathiaseelanAllen & Gledhill
Lawrence TanDrew & Napier LLC
Eugene TanDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Wishing Star Ltd sued Jurong Town Corp.
  2. The suit commenced on 13 January 2003.
  3. The trial proceeded on the preliminary issue of misrepresentation.
  4. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and ordered damages to be assessed.
  5. Wishing Star Ltd applied to amend its pleadings to plead failure to mitigate loss.
  6. The assistant registrar dismissed the application to amend.
  7. The High Court allowed Wishing Star Ltd's appeal against the registrar's decision.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp, Suit 31/2003, SUM 1319/2006, RA 115/2006, [2006] SGHC 82

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit commenced
Plaintiff's re-amended reply and defence to counterclaim dated
Plaintiff applied to amend its re-amended reply and defence to counterclaim
Application dismissed
Ms Mao Whey Ying filed affidavit
Counsel submitted written arguments
Plaintiff’s appeal allowed
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Amendment of Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court allowed the amendment, finding no undue prejudice to the defendant.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Prejudice to opposing party
  2. Mitigation of Loss
    • Outcome: The court considered that mitigation would be in issue given the counterclaim for breach of contract.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ketteman v Hansel Properties LtdN/AYes[1987] 1 AC 189N/ACited for the four propositions regarding amendments to pleadings, particularly concerning prejudice to the opposing party.
Rabiah Bee bte Mohamed Ibrahim v Salem IbrahimHigh CourtYes[2006] SGHC 17SingaporeCited for the principle that an amendment should not be surprising if the opposing party was aware of the matter and ought reasonably to have been prepared for it.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Order 20, r 5, Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Amendment of pleadings
  • Mitigation of loss
  • Prejudice
  • Misrepresentation
  • Rules of Court

15.2 Keywords

  • amendment
  • pleadings
  • mitigation
  • loss
  • civil procedure
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice75
Mitigation of Loss70
Amendment of Pleadings65
Misrepresentation60
Breach of Contract50
Damages40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law