Kraze Entertainment v Marina Bay Sands: Appeal Dismissed for Failure to Furnish Security for Costs

Kraze Entertainment (S) Pte Ltd appealed to the High Court against Assistant Registrar Shaun Leong’s order dismissing their application for an extension to furnish $100,000 as security for costs to Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd. Choo Han Teck J dismissed the appeal, emphasizing the importance of complying with court orders and noting the plaintiff's failure to provide adequate justification for the extension.

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

Appeal dismissed due to Kraze Entertainment's failure to furnish security for costs. The court emphasized the importance of obeying court orders.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
MARINA BAY SANDS PTE LTDDefendant, RespondentCorporationAppeal UpheldWon
Kraze Entertainment (S) Pte LtdPlaintiff, AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Davinder SinghDrew & Napier LLC
Pardeep Singh KhosaDrew & Napier LLC
Chan Yong WeiDrew & Napier LLC
Mohammed RezaRajah & Tann LLP
Jared KokRajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff was ordered to furnish $100,000 as security for costs by 4 pm on 5 February 2013.
  2. The plaintiff applied for a 14-day extension to comply with the order.
  3. The plaintiff did not file an affidavit supporting the application for an extension.
  4. The plaintiff's counsel stated the grounds for the extension as "our clients are unable to comply with the existing order."
  5. The defendant's solicitors sent numerous letters to the plaintiff's solicitors reminding them of court orders and requesting payment of costs, but received no response.
  6. The plaintiff filed a summons to stay the execution of the Assistant Registrar's decision, but filed a supporting affidavit late that evening.
  7. The affidavit stated that the plaintiff needed time to obtain funds from its majority shareholder in Korea, which required approval from the board and Korea's Central Bank.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Kraze Entertainment (S) Pte Ltd v Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd, Suit No 410 of 2011 (Registrar's Appeal No 39 of 2013), [2013] SGHC 39

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit filed by Kraze Entertainment (S) Pte Ltd against Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd
Order made requiring Kraze Entertainment to furnish $100,000 as security for costs
Kraze Entertainment applied for an extension of 14 days to furnish the security
Assistant Registrar dismissed Kraze Entertainment's application for an extension
Appeal heard before Choo Han Teck J
Solicitors for Kraze Entertainment wrote a letter to court
Appeal dismissed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Extension of Time to Comply with Court Order
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient justification for an extension of time to comply with the order for security for costs.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to provide sufficient grounds for extension
      • Failure to file supporting affidavit
    • Related Cases:
      • [1999] 1 SLR(R) 361
  2. Security for Costs
    • Outcome: The court upheld the original order for security for costs, emphasizing the importance of compliance with court orders.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Extension of time to comply with court order

9. Cause of Actions

  • No cause of actions

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Entertainment
  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Syed Mohamed Abdul Muthaliff and another v Arjan Bhisham ChotraniCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 361SingaporeCited regarding the court's consideration of prejudice to the defaulter and the need for positive efforts to comply with court orders.
Finnegan v Parkside Health AuthorityN/AYes[1998] 1 All ER 595N/ACited for the proposition that the absence of a good reason is not in itself sufficient to refuse an extension of time.
Zhong Da Chemical Development Co Ltd v Lanco IndustriesN/AYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 1017SingaporeCited regarding the expeditious payment of costs ordered.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security for costs
  • Extension of time
  • Unless order
  • Interlocutory order
  • Compliance with court orders
  • Affidavit
  • Contumelious conduct

15.2 Keywords

  • security for costs
  • extension of time
  • court order
  • civil procedure
  • singapore
  • high court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Security for Costs90
Appeal90
Costs85
Judgments and Orders80
Civil Procedure75
Jurisdiction30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Security for Costs