Ong Jane Rebecca v Pricewaterhousecoopers: Security for Costs & Access to Courts

In Ong Jane Rebecca v Pricewaterhousecoopers, the Singapore High Court heard appeals regarding security for costs in a suit brought by Ong Jane Rebecca, a British national, against Pricewaterhousecoopers, Pricewaterhousecoopers LLP, and Arul Chew & Partners. Ong claimed damages for breach of contract, negligence, and breach of duty of care. The defendants counterclaimed for unpaid professional fees. The court allowed the appeals in part, reducing the security for costs initially ordered, balancing the plaintiff's right to access the courts with the defendants' right to be secured for costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals allowed in part; security for costs reduced for all defendants.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

British national Ong Jane Rebecca's security for costs in a suit against Pricewaterhousecoopers is assessed, balancing access to courts.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
PricewaterhouseCoopers LLPDefendant, AppellantLimited Liability PartnershipAppeal DismissedLost
Ong Jane RebeccaPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
PricewaterhouseCoopersDefendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Arul Chew & PartnersDefendant, AppellantPartnershipAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Eugene ThuraisingamAllen & Gledhill LLP
Gina TanSam Koh & Co
Edmund KronenburgSam Koh & Co
Andrew HoSam Koh & Co
Sam KohSam Koh & Co
Elaine TayRajah & Tann LLP
Quentin Loh SCRajah & Tann LLP
Tan Ai LinRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff is a British National residing in the United Kingdom.
  2. The plaintiff commenced litigation proceedings in 1991 against her ex-husband’s mother.
  3. PwC was engaged by the plaintiff as an expert to assist in ascertaining her rights.
  4. PwC UK recommended PwC to the plaintiff.
  5. The plaintiff claims damages for breach of contract and/or breach of their duty of care.
  6. PwC has made a counterclaim against the plaintiff for the fees due to them.
  7. The plaintiff is currently under an Individual Voluntary Arrangement in the United Kingdom.
  8. The plaintiff has been unemployed since at least 1996.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ong Jane Rebecca v Pricewaterhousecoopers and Others, Suit 156/2006, RA 203/2008, 204/2008, 205/2008, 206/2008, 207/2008, 218/2008, 226/2008, [2009] SGHC 29

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Litigation proceedings commenced by Originating Summons No 939 of 1991
Third defendants acted as plaintiff’s solicitors from time to time between 1996 and 2006
PwC and PwC UK engaged by the plaintiff as an expert
Plaintiff commenced an action against the three defendants under Suit No 156 of 2006/W
High Court directed that an inquiry be held to determine the assets of the Estate
PwC filed Summons No. 1110 of 2008/V for the plaintiff to provide security
Assistant Registrar granted an order for security for costs against the plaintiff in the sum of $125,000
Assistant Registrar granted an order for security for costs against the plaintiff in the sum of $60,000
Appeals heard and decisions made regarding security for costs
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Security for Costs
    • Outcome: The court reduced the amount of security for costs to be provided by the plaintiff.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Impecuniosity of plaintiff
      • Overlap between defence and counterclaims
      • Plaintiff residing out of jurisdiction

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence
  • Breach of Duty of Care

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Accounting
  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v Puay Kim SengCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR 600SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court should consider all circumstances when deciding whether to order security for costs.
Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star LtdSingapore High CourtYes[2004] 2 SLR 427SingaporeCited for the principle that there is no presumption in favor of, or against, a grant of security.
Porzelack K.G. v. Porzelack (UK) LtdNot AvailableYes[1987] 1 W.L.R. 420United KingdomCited for the principle that an application for security for costs should not be made the occasion for a detailed examination of the merits of the case.
Omar Ali bin Mohd and Others v Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdulkadir Alhadad and OthersSingapore High CourtYes[1995] 3 SLR 388SingaporeCited for the principle that an application for security for costs should not be made the occasion for a detailed examination of the merits of the case.
Paper Properties Ltd v Jay Benning & CoNot AvailableNo[1995] 1 BCLC 172United KingdomCited to establish that the fact that a defendant is insured is irrelevant in determining whether an order for security should be made.
Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star LtdCourt of AppealYes[2004] 2 S.L.R. 431SingaporeCited for the principle that the fact that the issues for the defence and counterclaim are largely similar is a factor that should be taken into account in deciding the quantum of security to be ordered.
PT Muliakeramik Indahraya TBK v Nam Huat Tiling & Panelling Co Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] SGHC 154SingaporeCited for the principle that the extent of the overlap between defences and counterclaims should be a factor that is taken into account in considering whether security should be ordered and the quantum of any security to be provided.
Faridah Begum bte Abdullah v Dato’ Michael ChongNot AvailableYes[1995] 2 M.L.J. 404MalaysiaCited for the principle that the mere bankruptcy or impecuniosity of the plaintiff is not a sufficient ground for ordering security for costs against him.
Ho Wing On Christopher and Others v ECRC Land Pte Ltd (in liquidation)Court of AppealYes[2006] 4 SLR 817SingaporeCited for the principle that the courts’ approach to impecunious claimants must be sufficiently nuanced to discern between different categories of impecunious claimants.
Pearson v NaydlerNot AvailableYes[1977] 1 WLR 899United KingdomCited for the rationale for the distinction between natural persons and companies in relation to security for costs.
Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) LtdNot AvailableYes[1987] 1 All ER 1074United KingdomCited for the purpose of ordering security for costs against a plaintiff ordinarily resident outside the jurisdiction is to ensure that a successful defendant will have a fund available within the jurisdiction of this court against which it can enforce the judgment for costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2006 Rev. Ed.) O 23 r 1(1) (a)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security for costs
  • Impecuniosity
  • Individual Voluntary Arrangement
  • Breach of contract
  • Negligence
  • Duty of care
  • Counterclaim
  • Expert witness

15.2 Keywords

  • Security for costs
  • British National
  • Pricewaterhousecoopers
  • Negligence
  • Breach of contract
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Security for Costs95
Civil Practice90
Costs90

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Security for Costs