JR Marine Systems v Rankine: Striking Out Claim for Berlian Ferries Shares Based on Abuse of Process

In JR Marine Systems Pte Ltd v Rankine Bernadette Adeline and another, the High Court of Singapore dismissed JR Marine Systems' appeal against the decision to strike out its claim for one million shares in Berlian Ferries Pte Ltd. The court found the claim to be an abuse of process, as it sought to relitigate issues already decided in previous suits (Suit 266/2010 and Suit 971/2009) where Rankine Bernadette Adeline was declared the legal and beneficial owner of the shares. The court determined that the issue of resulting trust should have been raised in earlier proceedings and that the new evidence presented by JR Marine Systems did not meaningfully advance its case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court struck out JR Marine Systems' claim for shares in Berlian Ferries, finding it an abuse of process due to prior declarations.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
JR Marine Systems Pte LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Rankine Bernadette AdelineRespondentIndividualOrders sought in SUM 5744/2012 grantedWon
Berlian Ferries Pte LtdRespondentCorporationNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Uthayasurian s/o SidambaramSurian & Partners
Poonaam Bai d/o Ramakrishnan GnanasekaranEldan Law LLP
Tan Shien Loon LawrenceEldan Law LLP
Tnee Zixian KeithTan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Appellant sought a declaration that it was the rightful owner of one million shares in Berlian Ferries Pte Ltd.
  2. Appellant claimed the First Respondent held the shares on resulting trust.
  3. First Respondent claimed the shares were a gift and she was the legal and beneficial owner.
  4. First Respondent had previously obtained a declaration that she was the legal and beneficial owner of the shares in Suit 266/2010.
  5. First Respondent had also obtained judgment in Suit 971/2009 declaring her as the legal and beneficial owner of the shares.
  6. Appellant failed to raise the issue of resulting trust in Suit 266/2010.
  7. Appellant presented new evidence that the First Respondent did not furnish any consideration for the Shares.

5. Formal Citations

  1. JR Marine Systems Pte Ltd v Rankine Bernadette Adeline and another, Suit No 782 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal No 24 of 2013), [2013] SGHC 277

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit No 782 of 2012 commenced by the Appellant
First Respondent filed her defence
First Respondent discovered that the Shares which were in her name had been transferred without her authority to Chenet
Judgment was entered in favour of the First Respondent in Suit 971/2009
Appellant commenced Suit 266/2010 against Chenet
Appellant obtained judgment against Chenet for the two million shares
First Respondent obtained a declaration that she was the legal and beneficial owner of the Shares
First Respondent applied to strike out the Appellant’s statement of claim
Hearing of SUM 5744/2012
AR Teo granted the orders sought in SUM 5744/2012
Hearing of RA 24/2013 before Tay Yong Kwang J
Counsel for the Appellant filed Summons No 4636 of 2013
Hearing of SUM 4636/2013 together with RA 24/2013
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court held that the Appellant's institution of the present proceedings was an abuse of process under O 18 r 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Re-litigation of previously decided issues
      • Attempt to circumvent prior court declarations
      • Bringing an action for a collateral purpose
    • Related Cases:
      • [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
      • [1993] 1 WLR 1489
  2. Resulting Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that the issue of resulting trust should have been raised earlier in Suit 266/2010 because it was intimately connected with the issue of the legal and beneficial ownership of the Shares.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that Appellant was the rightful owner of the Shares
  2. Injunctions restraining the Respondents from dealing with the Shares

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaration of Ownership
  • Injunction

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Marine

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong JinCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649SingaporeCited for the interpretation of Order 18 rule 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court regarding abuse of process.
Lonrho plc v Fayed (No 5)N/AYes[1993] 1 WLR 1489N/ACited for the principle that an action brought for a collateral purpose, rather than to obtain relief, may be struck out as an abuse of process.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 18 r 19(1)(d) 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

  • Resulting trust
  • Abuse of process
  • Legal and beneficial ownership
  • Shares
  • Declaration
  • Re-litigation

15.2 Keywords

  • shares
  • resulting trust
  • abuse of process
  • Berlian Ferries
  • Rankine
  • JR Marine Systems

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Abuse of Process80
Resulting Trust75
Property Law70
Equity65
Estoppel60
Constructive Trust55
Civil Procedure50
Company Law30

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Civil Procedure
  • Share Ownership
  • Abuse of Process