Ong & Ong Architects v Yee Wei Chi: Summary Judgment & Closure of Pleadings After Adding New Party
In Ong & Ong Architects Pte Ltd and Another v Yee Wei Chi and Another, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of whether the addition of a new party to an action affects the timing for applying for summary judgment on the defendants’ counterclaim. The court held that the addition of a new plaintiff after pleadings were closed against the original plaintiff does not postpone the closure of pleadings for the original plaintiff, but the deadline for summary judgment against the new plaintiff is calculated from the date pleadings closed against them. The court struck out the summary judgment application against the first plaintiff as it was filed out of time, but allowed it to proceed against the second plaintiff. The court also struck out the prayer for striking out certain paragraphs of the plaintiffs’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Prayer one of the defendants’ summons is struck out as against the first plaintiff. Prayer one still remains as against the second plaintiff. Prayer two is struck out against both plaintiffs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The case concerns the timing of summary judgment applications after a new party is added to a suit. The court ruled on closure of pleadings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong & Ong Architects Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Prayer one of the defendants’ summons is struck out | Lost | Kirindeep Singh, Mark Seah |
| Ong & Ong Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Prayer one still remains | Neutral | Kirindeep Singh, Mark Seah |
| Yee Wei Chi | Defendant | Individual | Prayer two is struck out | Partial | Adrian Tan |
| Seow Kee Piao | Defendant | Individual | Prayer two is struck out | Partial | Adrian Tan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Dorcas Quek | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kirindeep Singh | Rodyk & Davidson |
| Mark Seah | Rodyk & Davidson |
| Adrian Tan | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- The original parties to the suit were the two defendants and the first plaintiff.
- The last pleading to be filed, the Reply and Defence to Counterclaim, was filed on 9 February 2007.
- Counsel for the first plaintiff indicated that they would apply to amend the Statement of Claim to add a new party on 23 February.
- The summons to amend was filed on 9 March.
- Leave for the second plaintiff to amend was granted on 26 March.
- The plaintiffs’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim (Amendment No. 1) was filed on 26 April.
- The defendants’ summary judgment application against both plaintiffs was filed on 4 June.
5. Formal Citations
- Ong & Ong Architects Pte Ltd and Another v Yee Wei Chi and Another, Suit 9/2007, SUM 2593/2007, [2007] SGHC 109
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Reply and Defence to Counterclaim filed | |
| Pre-trial conference held; counsel indicated intent to add a new party | |
| Summons (SUM 1020/2007) filed to amend Statement of Claim | |
| Leave granted to amend; consequential directions given | |
| Plaintiffs’ Reply and Defence to Counterclaim (Amendment No. 1) filed | |
| Defendants’ summary judgment application (SUM 2413/2007) filed | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Closure of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court held that amendment of pleadings does not postpone closure of pleadings, but the addition of a new party may postpone closure of pleadings depending on when the party was added.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Effect of amendment of pleadings on closure of pleadings
- Effect of addition of a new party on closure of pleadings
- Summary Judgment Application
- Outcome: The court held that the time bar to apply for summary judgment is an absolute one that could not be extended by the court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Timeliness of application
- Extension of time to file application
- Striking Out Application
- Outcome: The court held that it is good practice for the sake of efficient administration and clarity to file separate summons for unrelated applications.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Combining application for striking out with application for summary judgment
8. Remedies Sought
- Summary Judgment
- Striking Out
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Architecture
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United Engineers (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Lee Lip Hiong and others | High Court | Yes | [2004] SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that amendments of pleadings do not postpone closure of pleadings. |
| Chun Thong Ping v Soh Kok Hong | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR 204 | Singapore | Cited regarding the timing of summary judgment applications after amendments to pleadings, but distinguished by the court. |
| Sumikin Bussan Corp v Hiew Tech Seng | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR 773 | Singapore | Cited to argue that the time for deemed closure of pleadings is not absolute, but distinguished by the court as it was premised on different grounds. |
| Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd v Obegi Melissa | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR 573 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in a single action with multiple parties, pleadings would close against each defendant on the same date. |
| Bannister v SGC plc | English Court | Yes | [1997] 4 All ER 129 | England | Cited in support of the principle that there should be only one closure of pleadings in any action. |
| Techmex Far East Pte Ltd v Logicraft Products Manufacturing Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 483 | Singapore | Cited regarding supervening events altering the legal or factual basis of a claim, but distinguished by the court. |
| Mohd Azam Shuja & Ors v United Malayan Banking Corporation Bhd | Malaysian Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 MLJ 851 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff cannot proceed with two prayers for striking out and summary judgment in one application. |
| Peters v Winfield, Churchill v Forest of Dean DC | English Court | Yes | [1996] 1 WLR 604 | England | Cited regarding the procedure to be followed when a new defendant is added to an action. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 14 Rule 14 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 18 Rule 20 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 18 Rule 19 |
| Order 20 rr 5 and 8 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Closure of pleadings
- Summary judgment
- Amendment of pleadings
- Addition of new party
- Time bar
- Summons for directions
- Automatic directions
15.2 Keywords
- Summary Judgment
- Closure of Pleadings
- New Party
- Amendment
- Counterclaim
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Summary Judgment
- Pleadings