Kraze Entertainment v Marina Bay Sands: Striking Out Second Action for Abuse of Process
Kraze Entertainment (S) Pte Ltd sued Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, seeking declarations and damages for breach of a lease agreement. After the first action was struck out for failure to provide security for costs, Kraze Entertainment commenced a second action based on the same cause of action. The High Court struck out the second action as an abuse of process, finding that Kraze Entertainment had not provided a satisfactory explanation for its non-compliance with the peremptory order in the first action.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application granted with costs awarded to the defendant.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court struck out Kraze Entertainment's second suit against Marina Bay Sands, finding it an abuse of process due to prior non-compliance.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kraze Entertainment (S) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to strike out the writ of summons and statement of claim granted | Lost | Tito Shane Isaac, Justin Chan, Ho Seng Giap |
| Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application to strike out the writ of summons and statement of claim granted | Won | Davinder Singh SC, Pardeep Singh Khosa, Manbeer Singh Mangat |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| George Wei | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tito Shane Isaac | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
| Justin Chan | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
| Ho Seng Giap | Tito Isaac & Co LLP |
| Davinder Singh SC | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Pardeep Singh Khosa | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Manbeer Singh Mangat | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Kraze Entertainment sued Marina Bay Sands for breach of a lease agreement.
- The first action was struck out due to Kraze Entertainment's failure to provide security for costs.
- Kraze Entertainment commenced a second action based on the same cause of action.
- Kraze Entertainment was aware of the 'unless order' and the approaching deadline.
- Kraze Entertainment failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for non-compliance with the peremptory security for costs order.
- Kraze Entertainment had a history of slow payment of costs in the first action.
- SBI, a shareholder, has committed to providing financial support for the litigation.
5. Formal Citations
- Kraze Entertainment (S) Pte Ltd v Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd, Suit No 401 of 2013 (Summons No 2671 of 2013), [2013] SGHC 207
- Kraze Entertainment (S) Pte Ltd v Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd, , [2013] SGHC 39
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lease agreement signed between Marina Bay Sands and Krazetech. | |
| Letter of amendment agreed that premises would be used for nightclub, bar and restaurant under the brand names “Avalon” and “Pangaea”. | |
| Assignment agreement entered between Kraze Entertainment, Marina Bay Sands and Krazetech. | |
| Possession date under the lease. | |
| Negotiations between Kraze Entertainment and Marina Bay Sands over launching under a different nightclub brand. | |
| Marina Bay Sands terminated the lease. | |
| Kraze Entertainment commenced Suit No 410 of 2011 against Marina Bay Sands. | |
| Marina Bay Sands applied for an order of security for costs of the First Action. | |
| Peremptory order granted requiring Kraze Entertainment to furnish security. | |
| Kraze Entertainment requested a 14-day extension of time for compliance with the peremptory order. | |
| Hearing of the EOT Summons took place before AR Leong. EOT Summons was dismissed. | |
| Kraze Entertainment filed a notice of appeal against the decision of AR Leong not to grant the application for an extension of time. | |
| Kraze Entertainment took out a separate summons to stay the consequences of the decision of the EOT Summons pending RA 39. | |
| Appeal was dismissed and, as a result, the First Action was struck out with costs awarded to Marina Bay Sands. | |
| Kraze Entertainment requested leave to make further arguments to Choo J in respect of RA 39. | |
| Kraze Entertainment filed for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the decision of Choo J in RA 39. | |
| Kraze Entertainment withdrew the application for leave to appeal. | |
| Kraze Entertainment commenced the Second Action. | |
| Marina Bay Sands filed the application to have the Second Action struck out as an abuse of process of the court. | |
| Kraze Entertainment filed notice of change of solicitors. | |
| Kraze Entertainment’s solicitors proposed payment of S$100,000 by way of security of costs for the Second Action in return for a withdrawal of Summons No 2671 of 2013. | |
| Marina Bay Sands rejected the proposal. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that the second action was an abuse of process due to the plaintiff's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for non-compliance with the peremptory order in the first action.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to comply with peremptory order
- Re-litigation of same cause of action
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 3 SLR(R) 344
8. Remedies Sought
- Declarations
- Specific Performance
- Damages for breach of lease
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Entertainment
- Hospitality
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kraze Entertainment (S) Pte Ltd v Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 39 | Singapore | Cited as Kraze 1, the judgment details the procedural history leading to the striking out of the First Action and is central to the current judgment's reasoning. |
| Changhe International Investments Pte Ltd (formerly known as Druidstone Pte Ltd) v Dexia BIL Asia Singapore Ltd (formerly known as Banque Internationale A Luxembourg BIL (Asia) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 344 | Singapore | The leading case in Singapore regarding striking out a second suit for abuse of process when the first suit was dismissed for breach of an 'unless order'. It provides the legal principles applied in the current judgment. |
| Changhe International Investments Pte Ltd (formerly known as Druidstone Pte Ltd) v Dexia BIL Asia Singapore Ltd (formerly known as Banque Internationale A Luxembourg BIL (Asia) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 598 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court decision in the Changhe case, which was later appealed. It highlights the court's discretion in striking out a second suit and the importance of explaining the failure to comply with a peremptory order in the first suit. |
| Birkett v James | House of Lords | Yes | [1978] AC 297 | England | Cited to illustrate a previous general view doubting the striking out of an action as an abuse of process solely because a previous suit was struck out for disobedience to court orders. |
| Tolley v Morris | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979] 1 WLR 592 | England | Cited to illustrate a previous general view doubting the striking out of an action as an abuse of process solely because a previous suit was struck out for disobedience to court orders. |
| Samuels v Linzi Dresses Ltd | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1981] QB 115 | England | Cited as a case that marked a shift in judicial approach in England regarding the exercise of discretion to strike out for abuse of process. |
| Janov v Morris | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1981] 1 WLR 1389 | England | Cited as a case that marked a shift in judicial approach in England regarding the exercise of discretion to strike out for abuse of process. It emphasizes the necessity of complying with court orders. |
| Syed Mohamed Abdul Muthaliff v Arjan Bhishan Chotrani | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 361 | Singapore | Cited as a Singapore case that followed Samuels and Janov, establishing that a second suit may be struck out as an abuse of process unless the litigant can provide a proper explanation for failing to comply with a peremptory order. |
| Mitora Pte Ltd v Agritrade International (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 1179 | Singapore | Cited for its discussion on the principle of proportionality in assessing breaches of 'unless orders' and determining appropriate sanctions. It is relevant to the court's consideration of whether to exercise its discretion to strike out the second action. |
| Re Jokai Tea Holdings | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 WLR 1196 | England | Cited to support the principle that there must be appropriate degrees of consequences for breaches of court orders, and that some intentional breaches are more serious than others. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, Rev Ed 2006) O 18 r 19(1) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, Rev Ed 2006) O 18 r 19(6) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Abuse of process
- Peremptory order
- Security for costs
- Unless order
- Contumelious conduct
- Extraneous circumstance
- SBI
- Dilatory conduct
15.2 Keywords
- Striking out
- Abuse of process
- Peremptory order
- Security for costs
- Non-compliance
- Second action
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Abuse of Process