Ministry of Rural Development v Chan Leng Leng: Security for Costs Application

In The Ministry of Rural Development, Fishery, Craft, Industry and Environment of the Union of Comoros v Chan Leng Leng and another, the High Court of Singapore addressed the defendants' application for security for costs against the plaintiff, the Ministry of Rural Development of the Union of Comoros. The plaintiff sought to reverse the first defendant's decision to reject a Proof of Debt. The court considered whether the State Immunity Act prohibited ordering security for costs against the plaintiff and, if not, whether such an order was justified. The court ultimately ordered the plaintiff to provide security for the defendants' costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff ordered to provide security for the defendants’ costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court considered an application for security for costs against the Ministry of Rural Development of the Union of Comoros. The court ordered the plaintiff to provide security for the defendant's costs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Teck Ping KarenAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff is a department of the government of the Union of Comoros.
  2. The first defendant is the appointed liquidator of the second defendant.
  3. The second defendant was a company incorporated in Singapore.
  4. The plaintiff commenced proceedings in the Court of 1st Instance in the Union of Comoros against the second defendant.
  5. The plaintiff sought to reverse the first defendant’s decision to reject a Proof of Debt.
  6. The plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction.
  7. There is no reciprocal enforcement treaty between Singapore and the Union of Comoros.

5. Formal Citations

  1. The Ministry of Rural Development, Fishery, Craft, Industry and Environment of the Union of Comoros v Chan Leng Leng and another, Suit No 716 of 2012 (Summons 2143 of 2012), [2012] SGHCR 15

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff discovered Vessels carrying out fishing activities.
Second defendant entered Member’s Voluntary Liquidation.
Information relating to the voluntary liquidation was published in the four local daily newspapers.
Deadline for creditors to submit their claims against the second defendant.
Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the first defendant regarding the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Union of Comoros.
First defendant responded stating that the Judgment sum was not referenced in the second defendant’s accounts.
Proof of Debt was lodged by the plaintiff with the second defendant.
First defendant proceeded to adjudicate the plaintiff’s claim.
First defendant rejected the Proof of Debt.
Judgment reserved.
Decision Date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Security for Costs
    • Outcome: The court ordered the plaintiff to provide security for the defendants’ costs.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. State Immunity
    • Outcome: The court held that the State Immunity Act did not prohibit the court from ordering the plaintiff to provide security for the defendants’ costs.
    • Category: Jurisdictional

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order that the first defendant’s decision to reject the Proof of Debt be reversed

9. Cause of Actions

  • Rejection of Proof of Debt

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Insolvency Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Porzelack KG v Porzelack (UK) LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1987] 1 All ER 1074England and WalesCited for the purpose of ordering security of costs against a plaintiff ordinarily resident outside jurisdiction is to ensure that a successful defendant will have a fund available within the jurisdiction of this court against which it can enforce the judgment for costs.
Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v Puay Kim Seng and anotherCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 112SingaporeCited for the purpose of ordering security of costs against a plaintiff ordinarily resident outside jurisdiction is to ensure that a successful defendant will have a fund available within the jurisdiction of this court against which it can enforce the judgment for costs.
Omar Ali bin Mohd v Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdulkadir Alhadad & OrsHigh CourtYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 407SingaporeCited regarding the merits of the plaintiff’s claim in an application for security of costs.
NML Capital Ltd v Republic of ArgentinaEnglish Court of AppealYes[2010] EWCA Civ 41England and WalesCited for the interpretation of section 13(2)(b) of the United Kingdom’s State Immunity Act 1978, which is in pari materia with section 15(2)(b) of the Act.
Fustar Chemicals Ltd (Hong Kong) v Liquidator of Fustar Chemicals Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 458SingaporeCited regarding the liquidator's duty to scrutinise a proof of debt.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 23 rule 1 of the Rules of Court
Order 45 rule 1 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
State Immunity Act (Cap 313, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security for costs
  • State Immunity Act
  • Proof of Debt
  • Liquidator
  • Member’s Voluntary Liquidation
  • Enforcement of judgment

15.2 Keywords

  • Security for costs
  • State Immunity
  • Singapore High Court
  • Liquidation
  • Proof of Debt

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Conflict of Laws
  • Insolvency Law