Wonda Kitchareon v Greenlam: Security for Costs Application Dismissed
In Wonda Kitchareon Co Ltd v Greenlam Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Greenlam Asia Pacific Pte Ltd against the Assistant Registrar's decision to dismiss its application for security for costs against Wonda Kitchareon Co Ltd, a Thai company. Wonda had initiated proceedings against Greenlam, claiming damages related to defective laminate shipments, while Greenlam filed a counterclaim. The court, presided over by Justice Tan Lee Meng, dismissed Greenlam's appeal, finding insufficient evidence to suggest Wonda would be unable to pay costs and noting the interconnectedness of the claim and counterclaim. The judgment was delivered on 2010-12-08.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed Greenlam's application for security for costs against Wonda Kitchareon, a foreign plaintiff, finding insufficient grounds to warrant such security.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wonda Kitchareon Co Ltd | Plaintiff, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Won | |
| Greenlam Asia Pacific Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Michael Moey Chin Woon | Moey & Yuen |
| Jagjit Singh Gill s/o Harchand Singh | Gurdip & Gill |
4. Facts
- Wonda, a Thai company, purchased laminate from Greenlam, a Singapore company.
- Wonda claimed the first shipment of goods had numerous defects.
- Wonda refused to pay for the second shipment without inspection.
- Wonda instituted proceedings against Greenlam seeking damages.
- Greenlam applied for security for costs to be furnished by Wonda.
- Greenlam has a counterclaim against Wonda.
5. Formal Citations
- Wonda Kitchareon Co Ltd v Greenlam Asia Pacific Pte Ltd, Suit No 275 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No 400 of 2010), [2010] SGHC 355
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Wonda purchased laminate from Greenlam | |
| Wonda complained about laminate shipments | |
| Wonda instituted proceedings against Greenlam | |
| Greenlam's Chief Operating Officer filed an affidavit | |
| Assistant Registrar dismissed Greenlam's application for security for costs | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Security for Costs
- Outcome: The court dismissed the appeal, finding insufficient grounds to order the plaintiff to furnish security for costs.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Manufacturing
- Furniture
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v Puay Kim Seng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court considers all circumstances when deciding whether to order security for costs, whether under Order 23 Rule 1(1)(a) or Section 388 of the Companies Act. |
| Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 427 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has complete discretion in ordering security for costs and that there is no presumption in favor of or against a grant. |
| Keary Developments Ltd v Tarmac Construction Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1995] 3 All ER 534 | N/A | Cited to support the principle that the court has complete discretion in the matter of security for costs. |
| Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) | N/A | Yes | [1987] 1 WLR 420 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the court has a general discretion to award or refuse security for costs, having regard to all the circumstances of the case. |
| Omar Ali bin Mohd v Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdulkadir Alhadad | N/A | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 407 | N/A | Cited for adopting a similar approach to Porzelack KG regarding the examination of the likelihood of success in the action. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) Order 23 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Security for costs
- Foreign plaintiff
- Counterclaim
- Jurisdiction
- Bona fide claim
15.2 Keywords
- Security for costs
- Singapore High Court
- Foreign Plaintiff
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Security for Costs | 90 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
| Sale of Goods | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Litigation