Chia Kok Kee v Tan Wah: Striking Out Defenses & Abuse of Process in Investment Dispute
In Chia Kok Kee v Tan Wah and others, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Chia Kok Kee's appeals against the Assistant Registrar's decision to strike out his action against Tan Wah, the auditor, and the solicitor. Chia Kok Kee alleged fraud related to his investment in a hydroelectric power plant joint venture in China. The court found that Chia Kok Kee was re-litigating claims previously dismissed in Suit No 558 of 2005, Civil Appeal No 127 of 2007, and Originating Summons No 331 of 2010, constituting an abuse of process. The court also found no reasonable cause of action for fraud and that the claims were vexatious.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Chia Kok Kee's appeal against striking out his fraud action against Tan Wah and others was dismissed due to abuse of process and res judicata.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chia Kok Kee | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Wah | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Judgment in favor of Defendant | Won | |
| Second defendant | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Judgment in favor of Defendant | Won | |
| Third defendant | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Judgment in favor of Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Yao Fang | Fabian & Khoo |
4. Facts
- Chia Kok Kee and Tan Wah were investors in a hydroelectric power plant joint venture in China.
- HX Investment Pte Ltd was set up as the investment vehicle.
- A disputed oral agreement was made in 1995 regarding their respective shares.
- Chia Kok Kee claimed his investment of $326,467 was not recorded in HX’s books.
- Chia Kok Kee previously sued HX in Suit 558 of 2005, claiming a 40% share, which was dismissed.
- Chia Kok Kee alleged fraud against the defendants in Suit No 97 of 2011.
- The defendants argued that Chia Kok Kee was re-litigating former claims.
5. Formal Citations
- Chia Kok Kee v Tan Wah and others, Suit No. 97 of 2011 (Registrar's Appeal No 273 of 2011, No 274 of 2011 and No 275 of 2011), [2012] SGHC 36
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Oral agreement made between Chia Kok Kee and Tan Wah regarding their respective shares in the Chinese Investment. | |
| Dividend payouts from the Chinese investment were stopped. | |
| Chia Kok Kee instituted action against HX in Suit 558 of 2005 to affirm his share in the Chinese Investment and to obtain his share of dividends. | |
| Appeal against the decision in Suit No 558 of 2005 was dismissed in Civil Appeal No 127 of 2007. | |
| Chia Kok Kee's application for a new trial in Originating Summons No 331 of 2010 was dismissed. | |
| Chia Kok Kee filed Suit No 97 of 2011, alleging fraud. | |
| Summonses No 1111 of 2011, 1645 of 2011 and 1658 of 2011 were filed. | |
| Appeals dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's action was an abuse of process because it involved re-litigating issues that had already been decided in previous proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Re-litigation of previously decided issues
- Collateral attack on earlier decisions
- Lack of fresh evidence
- Related Cases:
- [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
- [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1099
- [2002] 2 AC 1
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 565
- [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453
- [1843-1860] All ER Rep 78
- Fraud
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had not discharged the high standard of proof required to establish a claim for fraud.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 3 SLR(R) 469
8. Remedies Sought
- Account of investment monies of $326,467
- Share of future dividends
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraud
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Energy
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin | Unknown | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court's power to strike out a pleading would only be exercised in “plain and obvious” cases. |
| The Osprey | Unknown | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1099 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court's power to strike out a pleading would only be exercised in “plain and obvious” cases. |
| Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) | Unknown | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 1 | Unknown | Cited for the approach to be taken in determining whether proceedings are an abuse of process, that of a “broad, merits-based judgment”. |
| Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 565 | Singapore | Cited for following the approach of a “broad, merits-based judgment” in determining whether proceedings are an abuse of process. |
| Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck | Unknown | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the factors the court ought to consider when determining whether the ambient circumstances of the case give rise to an abuse of process. |
| Henderson v Henderson | Unknown | Yes | [1843-1860] All ER Rep 78 | Unknown | Cited for the rationale of the abuse of process doctrine is to prevent a party who could have litigated an issue in previous proceedings but did not do so from initiating a new action to determine that issue where there are no clear and justifiable reasons for allowing this. |
| Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association | Unknown | Yes | [1970] 1 All ER 1094 | Unknown | Cited for the principle that a ‘reasonable cause of action’ refers to one which has some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleading are considered. |
| Chua Kwee Chen and others (as Westlake Eating House) and another v Koh Choon Chin | Unknown | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 469 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the gravity of an allegation of fraud requires more evidence to establish it despite the standard of proof in civil proceedings still being one of a balance of probabilities. |
| Rippon v Chilcotin Pty Ltd | Unknown | Yes | (2001) 53 NSWLR 198 | Unknown | Cited for the proposition that an abuse of process may also be found where a claimant dissatisfied with the result in the original proceedings seeks further relief or seeks it from a different defendant. |
| Goh Koon Suan v Heng Gek Kiau | Unknown | Yes | [1990] SLR 1251 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that ground (b) of Order 18 rule 19 addresses instances where parties are not bona fide in bringing an action but merely bring it to annoy or embarrass their opponent. |
| Chia Kok Kee v HX Investment Pte Ltd (So Lai Har (alias Chia Choon), third party in issue) (Tan Wah, third party in counterclaim) | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 164 | Singapore | Previous case between the parties concerning the same investment dispute. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Chinese Investment
- HX Investment Pte Ltd
- Abuse of process
- Res judicata
- Fraud
- Investment monies
- Dividend payouts
15.2 Keywords
- investment dispute
- fraud
- abuse of process
- striking out
- res judicata
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Res Judicata | 90 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 80 |
| Civil Litigation | 75 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Company Law | 50 |
| Business Litigation | 40 |
| Shareholding Disputes | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Litigation
- Investment Dispute
- Striking Out