Terrestrial Pte Ltd v Allgo Marine Pte Ltd: Striking Out Duplicate Action
In Terrestrial Pte Ltd v Allgo Marine Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court heard appeals regarding the consolidation and striking out of two suits. Terrestrial Pte Ltd, the plaintiff in Suit 827, appealed against the Assistant Registrar's order to consolidate Suit 1000 with Suit 827, while Allgo Marine Pte Ltd, the defendant in Suit 827, appealed against the order dispensing with the filing of further pleadings for Suit 1000. The High Court allowed Terrestrial's appeal, ordering Suit 1000 to be struck out, finding it a duplicate action and an abuse of process, as it mirrored Allgo Marine's counterclaim in Suit 827, which was a breach of contract claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court struck out Suit 1000, finding it a duplicate action and an abuse of process, as it mirrored Allgo Marine's counterclaim in Suit 827.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koh Lin Yee | Defendant | Individual | No specific outcome | Neutral | |
| Allgo Marine Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Terrestrial Pte Ltd | Plaintiff, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Govindarajalu Asokan | Gabriel Law Corporation |
| Edgar Chin | Kelvin Chia Partnership |
4. Facts
- Terrestrial commenced Suit 827 against Allgo Marine and Koh for monies owing under a loan agreement.
- Allgo Marine and Koh filed their Defence and Counterclaim in Suit 827.
- Allgo Marine filed Suit 1000 against Terrestrial, claiming a sum of US$1.35m.
- The Statement of Claim in Suit 1000 was almost identical to the counterclaim in Suit 827.
- The amount claimed in Suit 1000 and the counterclaim in Suit 827 was the same, viz, US$1.35m.
- Paragraphs 3 to 7 and 30 of the Defence and Counterclaim in Suit 827 were replicated word for word in paragraphs 3 to 8 of the Statement of Claim in Suit 1000.
5. Formal Citations
- Terrestrial Pte Ltd v Allgo Marine Pte Ltd, Suit No 827 of 2011, [2013] SGHC 98
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Loan Agreement dated | |
| Additional loan given | |
| Suit 827 commenced by Terrestrial | |
| Allgo Marine filed a Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim in Suit 1000 | |
| Allgo Marine and Koh filed their Defence and Counterclaim | |
| Allgo Marine filed an amended Writ of Summons and Statement of Claim in Suit 1000 | |
| AR ordered that Suit 1000 not be struck out, but consolidated with Suit 827 | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the commencement of Suit 1000 was prima facie an abuse of process of the Court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Duplicate Actions
- Related Cases:
- [1977-1978] SLR(R) 367
- (1883) 22 Ch D 397
- [2011] 2 SLR 661
- [1993] 1 WLR 1489
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others | Court of Appeal | No | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will not deprive a plaintiff of his right to have his case adjudicated at trial unless it is a “plain and obvious” case for striking out. |
| The “Bunga Melati” 5 | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will not deprive a plaintiff of his right to have his case adjudicated at trial unless it is a “plain and obvious” case for striking out. |
| Bank of Canton Ltd v Dart Sum Timber (Pte) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1977-1978] SLR(R) 367 | Singapore | Cited as authority for the proposition that it was prima facie vexatious to bring duplicate actions. |
| McHenry v Lewis | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1883) 22 Ch D 397 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that if a plaintiff brings two actions in the same court in respect of the same cause of action the court will generally regard it as an abuse of the process of the court and vexatious. |
| Syed Ahmad Jamal Alsagoff (administrator of the estate of Noor bte Abdulgader Harharah, deceased) and others v Harun Bin Syed Hussain Aljunied (alias Harun Aljunied) and others and other suits | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 661 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where proceedings based on a particular cause of action are in existence, it is prima facie an abuse of process to bring a second action based on the same cause of action. |
| Lonrho plc and others v Fayed and others (No 5) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that where an action was not brought bona fide for the purpose of obtaining relief but for some other ulterior or collateral purpose, it might be struck out as an abuse of the process of the court. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19(1) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 92 r 4 | Singapore |
| Rules of Court O 15 r 2 | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 3(d) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Duplicate Action
- Abuse of Process
- Counterclaim
- Consolidation
- Striking Out
15.2 Keywords
- duplicate action
- abuse of process
- striking out
- consolidation
- counterclaim
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Striking out | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Crossclaims | 60 |
| Breach of Contract | 50 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Litigation