Fibresteel Industries v Radovic Dragoslav: Security for Costs Application in Contract Dispute
In Fibresteel Industries Pte Ltd v Radovic Dragoslav, the High Court of Singapore addressed the defendant's application for security for costs. The court ordered Fibresteel Industries Pte Ltd to furnish security for costs in the amount of $30,000 within 4 weeks and also ordered the plaintiff to pay $1,200 costs to the defendant in respect of the appeal. The court considered the plaintiff's financial status, the merits of the claim, and whether the application was oppressive.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Security for costs in the amount of $30,000 be furnished by the plaintiff within 4 weeks and also ordered the plaintiff to pay $1,200 costs to the defendant in respect of the appeal.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court considered an application for security for costs by Radovic Dragoslav against Fibresteel Industries in a contract dispute. The court ordered Fibresteel to furnish security for costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Fibresteel Industries Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Security for costs ordered | Lost | A Rajandran of A Rajandran |
| Radovic Dragoslav | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Security for costs ordered | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| A Rajandran | A Rajandran |
| Goh Aik Chew | Goh Aik Chew & Co |
4. Facts
- The defendant applied for security for costs of $150,000.
- The plaintiff is a $2 shell company with no assets.
- The plaintiff's action against the 1st, 2nd, and 4th defendants was struck out.
- Wong provided US$250,000 to enable Cellate Marble LLC to redeem a pledge on the machine.
- No final agreement was entered into for the joint venture.
- The plaintiff claims S$505,989.06 and damages for loss of profits.
- The defendant offered to return the money in the context of a global settlement.
5. Formal Citations
- Fibresteel Industries Pte Ltd v Radovic Dragoslav, Suit 554/2006, RA 63/2007, [2007] SGHC 157
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Initial Statement of Claim filed | |
| Alexander Chan Tien Chee struck out as 1st Defendant | |
| Appeal dismissed with costs fixed at $1,200 | |
| Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 1) filed | |
| Earlier orders set aside; security for costs ordered | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Security for Costs
- Outcome: The court ordered the plaintiff to furnish security for costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Inability to pay costs
- Oppressive application
- Admission of debt
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Injunction (abandoned)
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Repudiation of Contract
- Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v Puay Kim Seng and Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 600 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the strength or weakness of the plaintiff's claim is a relevant circumstance in considering an application for security for costs. |
| KS Oriental Trading Pte Ltd v Defmat Aerospace Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR 606 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that impecuniosity is a factor to consider, but security for costs may be refused due to inconsistent defenses. |
| Sir Lindsay Parkinson & Co Ltd v Triplan Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1973] QB 609 | England | Cited for the principle that the court will consider whether the application for security for costs is being used oppressively to stifle a genuine claim. |
| L&M Concrete Specialists Pte Ltd v United Eng Contractors Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 524 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may consider whether there was an admission by the defendant that money was due and whether the application was taken out late in the proceedings. |
| Omar Ali bin Mohd & Ors v Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdulkadir Alhadad & Ors | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR 388 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a hearing for security for costs should not be the occasion to go into a detailed examination of the merits of the case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5) O 23 r 1(1)(a) to (d) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act (Cap 50) s 388(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Security for costs
- Shell company
- Joint venture
- Repudiation
- Global settlement
- Impecuniosity
15.2 Keywords
- Security for costs
- Contract dispute
- Singapore High Court
- Fibresteel Industries
- Radovic Dragoslav
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Security for Costs | 90 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Company Law | 50 |
| Contract Law | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Company Law
- Contract Law