ABB Holdings v Sher Hock Guan Charles: Amendment of Statement of Claim and Restitutionary Damages
ABB Holdings Pte Ltd and others sued Sher Hock Guan Charles in the High Court of Singapore, seeking to amend their Statement of Claim to include restitutionary damages after judgment was granted in their favor for breach of fiduciary duties. The court denied the application, finding that the plaintiffs had already elected their remedies and that allowing the amendment would prejudice the defendant and constitute an abuse of process.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for leave to amend paragraph 14(f) of the Statement of Claim is refused; leave to amend paragraphs 14(d) and (e) is granted.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to amend statement of claim to include restitutionary damages was denied. The court found the plaintiffs elected their remedies.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABB Holdings Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Partial | Partial | |
| Sher Hock Guan Charles | Defendant | Individual | Partial | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Shaun Leong Li Shiong | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiffs are part of a worldwide group of companies which bear the name ABB Group.
- The defendant worked for various companies in the ABB Group.
- The defendant communicated with a former ABB Group employee regarding a Chinese body's interest in technical advice.
- After leaving the plaintiffs, the defendant joined Xiamen Huadian Switchgear Co Ltd as its General Manager.
- The plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendant, alleging breach of fiduciary duties.
- The parties agreed to bifurcate the trial, with damages or calculation of profits to be assessed later.
- The court found that the defendant breached fiduciary duties to the second and third plaintiffs.
- The plaintiffs sought to amend the statement of claim to include restitutionary damages.
5. Formal Citations
- ABB Holdings Pte Ltd and others v Sher Hock Guan Charles, Suit No 798 of 2007 (Summons No 3343 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 267
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant left the second and third plaintiffs and joined Xiamen Huadian Switchgear Co Ltd. | |
| Plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendant. | |
| Plaintiffs invited the defendant to bifurcate the matter. | |
| Defendant agreed to the proposal to bifurcate the action. | |
| Consent order granted for the trial to be bifurcated. | |
| Final Judgment issued. | |
| Plaintiffs requested clarification of the options of remedies available. | |
| Parties appeared before the Judge to clarify the options of remedies available to the plaintiffs. | |
| Plaintiffs' written submissions were dated. | |
| Decision date of the judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court refused leave to amend paragraph 14(f) of the Statement of Claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Prejudice to the other party
- Second bite at the cherry
- Delay in application
- Related Cases:
- [2010] 1 SLR 52
- Election of Remedies
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs had elected their remedies and were estopped from raising an additional remedy of restitutionary damages.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1996] AC 514
- [1941] AC 1
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that allowing the amendment to have an additional remedy in restitutionary damages would be to give the plaintiffs a second bite at the cherry and would be condoning an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 1 WLR 445
- Restitutionary Damages
- Outcome: The court refused to allow the amendment to include a claim for restitutionary damages.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 1 A.C. 268
- [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 830
8. Remedies Sought
- General Damages
- Restitutionary Damages
- Account of Profits
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Breach of Duty of Fidelity
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ABB Holdings Pte Ltd and others v. Sher Hock Guan Charles | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 111 | Singapore | The present matter involves an application by the plaintiffs in ABB Holdings Pte Ltd and others v. Sher Hock Guan Charles [2009] 4 SLR(R) 111 (‘ABB Holdings’) for leave to amend its Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 3). |
| Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited for the principles that guide the Court in deciding whether to grant leave for amendment of pleadings. |
| John While Springs (S) Pte Ltd and another v. Goh Sai Chuah Justin and Others | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 150 | Singapore | Cited as a possible authority to justify paragraph 14(e) of the amended statement of claim. |
| Chwee Kin Keong v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may grant leave to amend a pleading at any stage of the proceedings. |
| Lee Siew Chun v Sourgrapes Packaging Products Trading Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that amendments to pleadings have been allowed at the final stages of a trial after the parties have made their closing submissions. |
| Invar Realty Pte Ltd v Kenzo Tange Urtec Inc | High Court | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 66 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that amendments to pleadings have been allowed after summary or interlocutory judgment has been obtained. |
| Soon Peng Yam v Maimon bte Ahmad | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 279 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that amendments to pleadings have been allowed pending an appeal or in the course of an appeal itself. |
| Asia Business Forum Pte Ltd v Long Ai Sin | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 173 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that amendments to pleadings have been allowed pending an appeal or in the course of an appeal itself. |
| Susilawati v American Express Bank Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 737 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that amendments to pleadings have been allowed pending an appeal or in the course of an appeal itself. |
| Tang Man Sit v. Capacious Investments Ltd | Privy Council | Yes | [1996] AC 514 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff can change his choice of remedies even at a very late stage, so long as the Court has not rendered judgment for the remedy to be given. |
| United Australia v. Barclays Bank | House of Lords | Yes | [1941] AC 1 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that on a question of alternative remedies no question of election arises until one or other claim has been brought to judgment. |
| World Wide Fund and another v. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 WLR 445 | England and Wales | Cited as an analogous situation where the plaintiffs' attempt to raise an issue by way of an amendment of its pleadings amounted to an abuse of process. |
| Johnson v. Gore Wood & Co | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 1 | United Kingdom | Cited in World Wide Fund and another v. World Wrestling Federation Entertainment Inc [2008] 1 WLR 445. |
| Attorney General v. Blake | House of Lords | Yes | [2001] 1 A.C. 268 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that there seems to be no reason, in principle, why the court must in all circumstances rule out an account of profits as a remedy for breach of contract. |
| Experience Hendrix v. PPX Enterprises Inc | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 1 All ER (Comm) 830 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the decision of AG v. Blake has opened the door for a bolder approach in awarding restitutionary damages where the claimant was unable to establish any identifiable financial loss. |
| Cheong Lay Yong v. Muthukumaran s/o Varthan and another | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 16 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that restitutionary damages are awarded in exceptional cases. |
| Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd | Chancery Division | Yes | [1974] 1 WLR 798 | England and Wales | Cited in Attorney General v. Blake [2001] 1 A.C. 268. |
| Friis and another v. Casetech Trading Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 511 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the object of an award is not to compensate the plaintiff for a loss, but to deprive the defendant of the benefit he gained by the breach of contract. |
| Surrey County Council v Bredero Homes Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 All ER 705 | England and Wales | Cited in Friis and another v. Casetech Trading Pte Ltd and another [2000] 2 SLR(R) 511. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 20 r 5(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Amendment of Statement of Claim
- Restitutionary Damages
- Election of Remedies
- Abuse of Process
- Bifurcation of Trial
- Fiduciary Duty
- Account of Profits
15.2 Keywords
- amendment
- statement of claim
- restitutionary damages
- fiduciary duty
- election of remedies
- abuse of process
- ABB Holdings
- Sher Hock Guan Charles
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Fiduciary Duties | 90 |
| Damages | 70 |
| Duty of fidelity | 70 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Election of Remedies | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 50 |
| Estoppel | 40 |
| Abuse of Process | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Account of Profits | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Litigation
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Remedies