Singapore Piling v Kim Teck: Pre-Action Discovery Appeal on Misrepresentation & Corporate Veil Piercing
In Singapore, Singapore Piling & Civil Engineering Pte Ltd, the plaintiff, sought pre-action discovery against Kim Teck Corp Pte Ltd, Kim Teck Industries Pte Ltd, Lee Thian Hock, Wong Chai Kim, and Lee Xiaohong, the defendants, related to a subcontract for a housing project in Sri Lanka. The High Court heard an appeal against the Assistant Registrar's order for pre-action discovery. The plaintiff alleged misrepresentation and sought to pierce the corporate veil of Kim Teck Corp Pte Ltd. Kan Ting Chiu J allowed the defendants' appeal, setting aside the discovery order and awarding costs to the defendants.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendants' appeal allowed. The Assistant Registrar's orders for discovery and costs against the appellants are set aside.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal against pre-action discovery order. The court considered misrepresentation and piercing the corporate veil in a subcontract dispute.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Singapore Piling & Civil Engineering Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Michael Chia Peng Chuang |
| Kim Teck Corp Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Kim Teck Industries Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | John Chung Khoon Leong |
| Lee Thian Hock | Defendant | Individual | No Appeal | Neutral | |
| Wong Chai Kim | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | John Chung Khoon Leong |
| Lee Xiaohong | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | John Chung Khoon Leong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kan Ting Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| John Chung Khoon Leong | Kelvin Chia Partnership |
| Michael Chia Peng Chuang | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
4. Facts
- Singapore Piling was the main contractor for a housing project in Sri Lanka.
- Kim Teck Corporation was appointed as the subcontractor for aluminium and glazing works.
- Lee Thian Hock was a former director of both Kim Teck Corporation and Kim Teck Industries.
- The plaintiff claimed it believed Kim Teck Corporation was incorporated in Singapore.
- The plaintiff made payments to a bank account in the name of Kim Teck Corporation in Vietnam.
- The plaintiff complained of major defects in the subcontract work.
- Lee Thian Hock allegedly admitted to incorporating Kim Teck Corporation in the BVI to avoid potential losses.
5. Formal Citations
- Singapore Piling & Civil Engineering Pte Ltd v Kim Teck Corp Pte Ltd and others, Originating Summons No 1568 of 2008 (Registrar's Appeal No 93 of 2009), [2010] SGHC 84
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Kim Teck Corporation Pte Ltd incorporated in the British Virgin Islands | |
| Lee Thian Hock adjudicated a bankrupt | |
| Kim Teck Industries Pte Ltd submitted design drawings and calculations to the plaintiff | |
| Kim Teck Industries Pte Ltd submitted design drawings and calculations to the plaintiff | |
| Revised quotation sent to the plaintiff on letterhead of Kim Teck Corporation Pte Ltd | |
| Revised quotation sent to the plaintiff on letterhead of Kim Teck Corporation Pte Ltd | |
| Revised quotation sent to the plaintiff on letterhead of Kim Teck Corporation Pte Ltd | |
| Plaintiff awarded a sub-contract to Kim Teck Corporation Pte Ltd | |
| Kim Teck Industries Pte Ltd requested plaintiff to make progress payments to Kim Teck Corporation Pte Ltd's bank account | |
| Lee Thian Hock resigned as director | |
| Lee Xiaohong became a director | |
| Meeting between Lee Kim Huat, Victor Foo, and Lee Thian Hock | |
| Lee Kim Huat's 1st affidavit filed | |
| Third defendant deposed an affidavit | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Pre-Action Discovery
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff did not meet the requirements for pre-action discovery.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 3 SLR(R) 485
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's allegation of misrepresentation did not form a reasonable basis for the application.
- Category: Substantive
- Piercing the Corporate Veil
- Outcome: The court considered the potential need to pierce the corporate veil but did not make a definitive ruling on the matter.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Pre-action discovery
9. Cause of Actions
- Misrepresentation
- Conspiracy
- Breach of Duties
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kuah Kok Kim and others v Ernst & Young | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 485 | Singapore | Cited as the principal decision on pre-action discovery in Singapore. |
| Dunning v Board of Governors of the United Liverpool Hospitals | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1973] 2 All ER 454 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an applicant for pre-action discovery must disclose the nature of the claim and show a reasonable basis for making it. |
| Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG Singapore Branch | High Court | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 321 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate a case where pre-action discovery was not ordered because the plaintiff's complaint was based on insubstantial sources. |
| Bayerische Hypo-und Vereinsbank AG v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and other applications | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 39 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate a case where pre-action discovery was denied because the banks had already concluded they had a case. |
| Asta Rickmers Schiffahrtsgesellschaft mbH & Cie KG v Hub Marine Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 283 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate a case where pre-action discovery was allowed to ascertain if a company was liable to pay an arbitral award by lifting the corporate veil. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 24 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 24 r 6(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 24 r 7 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Pre-action discovery
- Misrepresentation
- Corporate veil
- Sub-contract
- BVI company
- Bankruptcy
- Letter of award
- Progress payments
15.2 Keywords
- Pre-action discovery
- Misrepresentation
- Corporate veil
- Singapore
- Construction
- Subcontract
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Discovery
- Contract Law
- Company Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Pre-Action Discovery
- Company Law