Woon Brothers Investments v Management Corp: Conversion of Originating Summons to Writ for Fraud Allegations
In Woon Brothers Investments Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 461 and others, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the conversion of an originating summons (OS) to a writ of summons. Woon Brothers Investments Pte Ltd, a subsidiary proprietor, filed an OS against the Management Corporation and others, alleging fraud and misappropriation of funds. The respondents applied to convert the OS into a writ, which was initially dismissed but later allowed by a judge. The Court of Appeal dismissed Woon Brothers' appeal, holding that the court has the jurisdiction to convert the OS into a writ and that the discretion was properly exercised given the substantial factual disputes and allegations of fraud.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The Court of Appeal addressed whether an originating summons under the BMSMA can be converted to a writ due to fraud allegations. The court dismissed the appeal, allowing the conversion.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Woon Brothers Investments Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Nicholas Lazarus |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 461 | Respondent | Corporation | Costs Awarded | Won | Boo Moh Cheh |
| Cheong Keng Hooi | Respondent | Individual | Costs Awarded | Won | Philip Fong, Justin Chia, Kylie Peh |
| Cheong Hooi Hong | Respondent | Individual | Costs Awarded | Won | Philip Fong, Justin Chia, Kylie Peh |
| Cheong Sim Lam | Respondent | Individual | Costs Awarded | Won | Philip Fong, Justin Chia, Kylie Peh |
| International Associated Company Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Costs Awarded | Won | Philip Fong, Justin Chia, Kylie Peh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Nicholas Lazarus | Justicius Law Corporation |
| Boo Moh Cheh | Kurup & Boo |
| Philip Fong | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
| Justin Chia | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
| Kylie Peh | Harry Elias Partnership LLP |
4. Facts
- Woon Brothers Investments Pte Ltd alleged fraud and misappropriation of funds against the respondents.
- The respondents applied to convert the originating summons into a writ of summons.
- The Assistant Registrar initially dismissed the application to convert the OS.
- A judge reversed the AR's decision, allowing the conversion.
- The appellant argued that s 124(1) of the BMSMA prohibits converting an OS into a writ.
- The respondents argued that there was a substantial dispute of fact.
- The appellant relied heavily on hearsay evidence.
5. Formal Citations
- Woon Brothers Investments Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 461 and others, Originating Summons No 499 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No 300 of 2010), [2011] SGCA 43
- Woon Brothers Investments Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Titles Plan No 461 and Ors, , [2011] 2 SLR 405
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Originating Summons filed | |
| Application to convert OS into writ filed | |
| Appeal dismissed | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Conversion of Originating Summons to Writ
- Outcome: The court held that it had the jurisdiction to convert the OS into a writ, notwithstanding s 124(1) of the BMSMA.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Substantial dispute of fact
- Allegations of fraud
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaratory relief
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraud
- Breach of statutory duty
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Thomas & Betts (SE Asia) Pte Ltd v Ou Tin Joon and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 380 | Singapore | Cited to address how the Rules of Court ought to be read with an Act of Parliament. |
| Madras Electric Supply Corporation Ltd v Boarland (Inspector of Taxes) | N/A | Yes | [1955] AC 667 | N/A | Cited for the presumption of statutory interpretation that the same word is to bear the same meaning throughout the Act. |
| Hounslow London Borough Council v Thames Water Utilities Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 WLR 1243 | N/A | Cited for the presumption of statutory interpretation that the same word is to bear the same meaning throughout the Act. |
| R (on the application of Edison First Power Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions | N/A | Yes | [2003] UKHL 20 | N/A | Cited for the presumption that Parliament would not have intended a statute to give rise to an absurd, unworkable or inconvenient result. |
| Wickman Machine Tool Sales Ltd v L Schuler AG | N/A | Yes | [1974] AC 235 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the strength of presumptions depends on the degree to which a particular construction produces an unreasonable result. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1786 v Huang Hsiang Shui | District Court | Yes | [2006] SGDC 20 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent where an OS commenced under a provision similar to s 124(1) of BMSMA had been converted into a writ. |
| Hillwood Development Pte Ltd v Mariam Binte Amir & Anor | High Court | Yes | [1999] SGHC 106 | Singapore | Cited as a precedent where an OS commenced under a provision similar to s 124(1) of BMSMA had been converted into a writ. |
| Tan Sock Hian v Eng Liat Kiang | N/A | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 730 | N/A | Cited to support the point that O 28 r 4(4) is only meant to be adopted in cases where there are few disputes of fact. |
| Malaysian International Merchant Bankers Bhd v Highland Chocolate & Confectionary Sdn Bhd & Anor | N/A | Yes | [1997] 1 MLJ 102 | N/A | Cited to support the point that the writ is usually more appropriate when allegations of fraud are made. |
| Re 462 Green Lane, Ilford Gooding v Borland | N/A | Yes | [1971] 1 All ER 315 | N/A | Cited to support the point that the writ is usually more appropriate when allegations of fraud are made. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 53 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 124(1) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 28 r 8 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 5 rr 2 and 4 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| O 5 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 28 r 8 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| O 28 r 4 of the Rules of Court | Singapore |
| s19(c) of the Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) | Singapore |
| s 41A(1) and (2) of the Interpretation Act | Singapore |
| O 41 r 5 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Originating summons
- Writ of summons
- Conversion
- Substantial dispute of fact
- Fraud
- Misappropriation of funds
- Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act
- Rules of Court
- Interpretation Act
- Hearsay evidence
15.2 Keywords
- Originating summons
- Writ
- Conversion
- Fraud
- BMSMA
- Rules of Court
- Interpretation Act
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Strata Titles
- Subsidiary Legislation
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Strata Management
- Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act
- Rules of Court
- Interpretation Act