Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai: Injunction for Arbitrator Fees Dispute

In Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd, Anwar Siraj, and Khoo Cheng Neo Norma, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the third defendant, Norma Khoo, to discharge an injunction obtained by the plaintiff, John Ting, an architect, to secure his arbitrator's fees. The injunction was related to a long-running dispute over the construction of the couple's house. The court dismissed the discharge application, preserving the status quo until the hearing of the originating summons.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Discharge application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Architect John Ting sought an injunction to secure arbitrator fees in a dispute with Teo Hee Lai Building Construction and others. The court upheld the injunction pending resolution of the originating summons.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Anwar SirajDefendantIndividualInjunction maintainedLost
Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte LtdDefendantCorporationNo specific outcomeNeutral
Khoo Cheng Neo NormaDefendant, RespondentIndividualDischarge application dismissedLost
Ting Kang Chung JohnPlaintiffIndividualInjunction maintainedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Raman GopalanG R Law Corporation
Ng YuenNg & Koh

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff was the arbitrator in a dispute between the couple and the first defendant.
  2. The arbitration concerned the construction of the couple's house.
  3. The plaintiff's award was ready on 15 April 2005, but not collected.
  4. The plaintiff sought $199,178.40 in outstanding arbitrator's fees.
  5. The couple sold their property for $3.06 million.
  6. The plaintiff feared the couple would dissipate the sale proceeds.
  7. The couple had been made bankrupt at end 2006 but discharged in October 2007.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ting Kang Chung John v Teo Hee Lai Building Construction Pte Ltd and Others, OS 1807/2006, [2008] SGHC 200

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff accepted appointment of arbitrator.
Couple applied to remove plaintiff as arbitrator.
Application to remove plaintiff as arbitrator was dismissed.
Arbitration rescheduled.
Arbitration award was ready to be issued.
Plaintiff filed Originating Summons.
Second defendant applied for discovery and inspection of the Award.
Second defendant’s application was dismissed.
Second defendant’s appeal was dismissed.
Plaintiff filed application for an injunction.
Injunction order granted by Justice Lee Seiu Kin.
Third defendant applied for the injunction order to be discharged.
Discharge application was dismissed.
Third defendant applied for extension of time to submit request for further arguments.
Extension application allowed.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Injunction to secure arbitrator's fees
    • Outcome: The court upheld the injunction, finding a good arguable case and a risk of asset dissipation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Risk of dissipation of assets
      • Full and frank disclosure
    • Related Cases:
      • [1989] SLR 896
      • [1994] 1 SLR 434
      • [2000] 2 SLR 750
      • [1988] 3 All ER 188
  2. Compliance with Practice Directions
    • Outcome: The court acknowledged non-compliance with the Practice Direction but found sufficient grounds to justify the ex parte application.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Ex parte application requirements
      • Notice to other parties
    • Related Cases:
      • [1989] SLR 896
      • [1994] 1 SLR 434

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Injunction
  2. Payment of arbitrator's fees

9. Cause of Actions

  • Claim for arbitrator's fees

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Castle Fitness Consultancy Pte Ltd v ManzHigh CourtYes[1989] SLR 896SingaporeCited regarding the principle that an opponent to an ex parte application, especially where the application seeks injunctive relief, should be invited to attend at the hearing of the application.
The Nagasaki (No. 1)High CourtYes[1994] 1 SLR 434SingaporeCited regarding the principle that an opponent to an ex parte application, especially where the application seeks injunctive relief, should be invited to attend at the hearing of the application.
Tay Long Kee Impex Pte Ltd v Tan Beng Huwah (trading as Sin Kwang Wah)Court of AppealYes[2000] 2 SLR 750SingaporeCited for the definition of 'material facts' in the context of full and frank disclosure and the court's discretion in cases of material non-disclosure.
Brink’s-Mat Ltd v Elcomb & OrsCourt of AppealYes[1988] 3 All ER 188England and WalesCited for the principle that non-disclosure of a material fact to the first judge did not prevent the grant of further relief at a subsequent application when that fact was fully before the court.
RA400 of 2007High CourtYes[2008] SGHC 54SingaporeQuoted regarding the second defendant’s persistence at jamming the machinery of litigation by his incessant interlocutory applications and appeals.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Practice Direction 2007 Rule 41

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act Cap 322 2007 Rev EdSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Arbitrator's fees
  • Injunction
  • Dissipation of assets
  • Ex parte application
  • Full and frank disclosure
  • Originating Summons
  • Arbitration Award
  • Mareva injunction

15.2 Keywords

  • arbitration
  • injunction
  • arbitrator fees
  • singapore
  • civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Injunctions90
Arbitration75
Arbitrator's Fees65
Civil Procedure60
Construction Law50
Contract Law40

16. Subjects

  • Arbitration
  • Injunctions
  • Civil Procedure