Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan: Amendment of Statement of Claim & Alternative Pleading

Ng Chee Weng appealed against the High Court's decision regarding the amendment of his Statement of Claim against Lim Jit Ming Bryan and Teo Soo Geok Josephine. The case involves an alleged settlement agreement and an original cause of action based on a trust. Ng Chee Weng commenced an action against Bryan Lim Jit Ming and Teo Soo Geok Josephine, alleging that Lim held shares in SinCo Technologies Pte Ltd on trust for him. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, permitting Ng Chee Weng to amend his pleadings to include alternative claims.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding amendment of a Statement of Claim involving a settlement agreement and a trust. The court allowed the appeal, permitting alternative pleading.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ng Chee WengAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Lim Jit Ming BryanRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Teo Soo Geok JosephineRespondentIndividualNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Cheng HanVijay & Co
Periowsamy OtharamVijay & Co
Vijay KumarVijay & Co
Cavinder BullDrew & Napier LLC
Lin ShuminDrew & Napier LLC
Woo Shu YanDrew & Napier LLC
Priscilla LuaDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Ng Chee Weng claimed Lim Jit Ming held shares in SinCo Technologies Pte Ltd on trust for him.
  2. Ng Chee Weng sought dividends declared by SinCo Technologies Pte Ltd between 2003 and 2007, amounting to $8.88 million.
  3. Settlement discussions occurred between Ng Chee Weng and Lim Jit Ming.
  4. Ng Chee Weng alleged an oral settlement agreement on 31 March 2009, where Lim Jit Ming agreed to pay $4.5 million.
  5. Lim Jit Ming allegedly breached the settlement agreement by failing to pay the $4.5 million.
  6. Ng Chee Weng sought to amend his Statement of Claim to include the settlement agreement as the primary claim and the trust claim as an alternative.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another, Civil Appeal No 190 of 2010, [2011] SGCA 62
  2. Ng Chee Weng v Bryan Lim Jit Ming and another, , [2011] SGHC 120

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Ng Chee Weng commenced action against Bryan Lim Jit Ming and Teo Soo Geok Josephine
Alleged oral Settlement Agreement between Ng Chee Weng and Bryan Lim Jit Ming
Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in CA 93/2009 and disallowed the First Proposed Amendment
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Amendment of Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court allowed the appellant to amend his pleadings to include alternative claims.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Alternative pleading
      • Inconsistent causes of action
  2. Settlement Agreement
    • Outcome: The court held that the question of whether or not there was a settlement agreement should be determined as a preliminary issue.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Existence of settlement agreement
      • Breach of settlement agreement
      • Repudiation of settlement agreement
  3. Doctrine of Election
    • Outcome: The court held that the doctrine of election does not apply before a court determines the issue of whether or not a settlement exists between the parties.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Without Prejudice Rule
    • Outcome: The court held that the 'without prejudice' rule is not an absolute rule and is subject to a number of exceptions, the most important being the exception in Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Account of Dividends
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wright Norman and another v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp LtdCourt of AppealYes[1993] 3 SLR(R) 640SingaporeCited for the principle that amendments enabling the trial of real issues should be allowed unless they cause injustice not compensable by costs.
Cropper v SmithEnglish Court of AppealYes(1884) 26 Ch D 700England and WalesCited for the principle that the court should be hesitant to punish litigants for mistakes in the conduct of their cases.
Ketteman v Hansel Properties LtdHouse of LordsYes[1987] AC 189England and WalesCited for the qualification that a judge must consider all circumstances, as justice cannot always be measured in terms of money.
Tang Chay Seng v Tung Yang Wee ArthurHigh CourtYes[2010] 4 SLR 1020SingaporeCited for endorsing the qualification in Ketteman that justice cannot always be measured in terms of money.
United Overseas Bank Ltd v Ng Huat Foundations Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2005] 2 SLR(R) 425SingaporeCited for the principle that procedural justice is an important aspect of the holistic ideal and concept of justice itself.
Philipps v PhilippsEnglish Court of AppealYes(1878) 4 QBD 127England and WalesCited for the principle that a party is allowed to include two or more inconsistent sets of material facts and claim relief to each set in the alternative.
Chong Poh Siew v Chong Poh HengHigh CourtYes[1994] 3 SLR(R) 188SingaporeCited for endorsing and qualifying the principles in Philipps, stating that alternatives cannot offend common sense and justice.
Brailsford v TobieSupreme Court of VictoriaYes(1888) 10 ALT 194AustraliaCited for the exception that alternative statements of fact are not permitted if one statement or the other must, to the knowledge of the pleader, be false.
Lam Fung-ying v Ho Tung-sing and AnotherHong Kong Court of AppealYes[1993] 2 HKLR 187Hong KongCited by the respondent for the proposition that the appellant, having elected to prosecute the original action, could not later resile from that election and set up the compromise instead. The court distinguished this case.
The “Dilman Fulmar”High CourtYes[2004] 1 SLR(R) 140SingaporeCited by the respondent for the proposition that in the event of a repudiation of a settlement agreement, the innocent party is required to elect between suing on the settlement agreement and suing on the original claim. The court distinguished this case.
Luk Por v Chau Kim HungHong Kong Court of First InstanceYes[2001] 1 HKC 674Hong KongCited by the respondent for the proposition that it is most undesirable that evidence of the “without prejudice” negotiations should be admitted at the trial of the original action as it might well prejudice the defendant. The court distinguished this case.
Quek Kheng Leong Nicky and another v Teo Beng Ngoh and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 181SingaporeCited for the principle that the “without prejudice” rule is not an absolute rule and is subject to a number of exceptions, the most important being the exception in Rush & Tompkins Ltd v Greater London Council [1989] AC 1280.
Active Timber Agencies Pte Ltd v Allen & GledhillHigh CourtYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 334SingaporeCited for the principle that the power to strike out a claim can only be exercised when it is patently clear that there is no reasonable cause of action.
The “Tokai Maru”Court of AppealYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 646SingaporeCited for the principle that the hearing of an application to strike out should not involve a minute examination of the documents or the facts of the case.
T2 Networks Pte Ltd v Nasioncom Sdn BhdHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited for the approach of dealing with the issue as to whether or not there was a settlement agreement as a preliminary issue.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 18 Rule 7 of the Rules of Court
Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Settlement agreement
  • Statement of claim
  • Alternative pleading
  • Without prejudice
  • Doctrine of election
  • Trust
  • Amendment of pleadings

15.2 Keywords

  • amendment
  • pleadings
  • settlement
  • trust
  • alternative
  • election
  • prejudice

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Settlement Agreement80
Civil Practice70
Amendment of Pleadings70
Alternative Pleadings60
Breach of Contract60
Contract Law60
Without Prejudice Rule50
Estoppel40
Appeal30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Trust Law
  • Amendment of Pleadings
  • Settlement Agreements