Ling Mang Khong Stanley v Teo Chee Siong: Striking Out Third Party Claim for Conspiracy & Contribution

In Ling Mang Khong Stanley v Teo Chee Siong, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against the decision to strike out the defendants' claim against the third party, Yeo Boon Hwa. The defendants, Teo Chee Siong and Christopher Goh Wee Min, sought contribution or indemnity from Yeo Boon Hwa, alleging conspiracy and involvement in the plaintiff's claim of misrepresentation. Lai Siu Chiu J dismissed the appeal, finding the defendants' claims legally unsustainable and an abuse of process. The court held that the third-party proceedings were initiated for a collateral purpose, namely to dissuade the third party from testifying for the plaintiff.

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 regarding striking out a third-party claim for conspiracy and contribution. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the claim unsustainable.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ling Mang Khong StanleyPlaintiffIndividualClaim struck out in Registrar’s Appeal No 165 of 2010, but successful in appeal against that decisionPartial
Teo Chee SiongDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Christopher Goh Wee MinDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Yeo Boon HwaRespondent, Third PartyIndividualStriking-Out Application AllowedWon
Anewtech Systems Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim against the third defendant was discontinuedDismissed

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Andrew GohMark Goh & Co
Mark GohMark Goh & Co
Deepak NatverlalMaximus Law LLC
Dominic ChanCharacterist LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff, first and second defendants, and the third party were shareholders in Anewtech Systems Pte Ltd.
  2. The dispute centered on a meeting where the first and second defendants allegedly misled the plaintiff into selling his shares at a low price.
  3. The plaintiff commenced proceedings against the defendants based on breach of fiduciary duties, misrepresentation, deceit, and conspiracy to injure.
  4. The plaintiff obtained an Anton Piller order against the first and second defendants.
  5. The defendants commenced third party proceedings against the third party.
  6. The plaintiff amended his claim to one of misrepresentation after an earlier claim was struck out and appealed.
  7. The third party applied to strike out the defendants’ statement of claim against him.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ling Mang Khong Stanley v Teo Chee Siong and others, Suit No 752 of 2007 (Registrar's Appeal No 459 of 2012), [2013] SGHC 58

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Meeting held where alleged misrepresentations took place
Proceedings commenced by the plaintiff
Anton Piller order obtained
Desk of the second defendant raided
CA Order made by the appellate court
Defendants amended and filed their statement of claim against the third party
Third party filed the Striking-Out Application
Assistant registrar allowed the third party’s application to strike out the defendants’ statement of claim
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Striking Out
    • Outcome: The court upheld the decision to strike out the defendants' claim against the third party.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delay in application
      • Abuse of process
    • Related Cases:
      • [1992] 3 SLR(R) 757
      • [2002] 1 SLR(R) 44
      • [2007] 3 SLR(R) 566
  2. Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court found that the claim of conspiracy was not a recognized ground for bringing third party proceedings.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2003] 2 SLR(R) 361
  3. Contribution
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendants were not entitled to a contribution from the third party.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court found that the third party proceedings were an abuse of process.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1993] 1 WLR 1489
      • [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
      • [2011] 2 SLR 661

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Contribution
  2. Indemnity

9. Cause of Actions

  • Misrepresentation
  • Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lee Kuan Yew v Nair Devan (Straits Times Press (1975) Ltd and another, third parties)High CourtYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 757SingaporeCited for the principle that the principles applicable to an application to set aside a third party notice are the same as those governing the determination of an application to strike out a plaintiff’s claim.
Tapematic SpA v Wirana Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 44SingaporeCited for the principle that a late application to strike out a pleading is not doomed to failure.
Orient Centre Investments Ltd and another v Société GénéraleHigh CourtYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 566SingaporeCited for the principle that a late application to strike out a pleading is not doomed to failure.
Nganthavee Teriya (alias Gan Hui Poo) v Ang Yee Lim Lawrence and othersHigh CourtNo[2003] 2 SLR(R) 361SingaporeCited to define the requirements of O 16 r 1(1)(c) of the Rules of Court.
Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff v Harun bin Syed Hussain AljuniedHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 661SingaporeCited for the principle that where a party commences a new action in respect of a claim which was the subject matter of previous proceedings, it is liable to be struck out for abuse of process unless that party can show a good reason to justify the commencement of the new action.
Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit and another appealHigh CourtYes[2000] 1 SLR(R) 53SingaporeCited for the principle that the court prefers to allow an amendment rather than to take the drastic course of striking it out.
Lonrho PLC and Others v Fayed and Others (No 5)Court of AppealYes[1993] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited for the principle that the commencement of third party proceedings for a collateral purpose other than the legitimate pursuit of a remedy is an abuse of process.
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and othersCourt of AppealYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649SingaporeCited for the principle that the commencement of third party proceedings for a collateral purpose other than the legitimate pursuit of a remedy is an abuse of process.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Striking-Out Application
  • Third Party Proceedings
  • Anton Piller order
  • Misrepresentation
  • Conspiracy
  • Contribution
  • Indemnity
  • Abuse of process

15.2 Keywords

  • Striking Out
  • Third Party
  • Conspiracy
  • Contribution
  • Misrepresentation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misrepresentation75
Fraud and Deceit60
Civil Procedure60
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means50
Fiduciary Duties40
Company Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Tort Law
  • Conspiracy
  • Third Party Claims