Ho Pak Kim Realty v Attorney-General: Claim for Damages for Alleged Biased Judicial Orders Dismissed
Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd (HPK), represented by Ho Soo Fong, sued the Attorney-General in the High Court of Singapore, alleging bias and unfairness in prior judicial orders related to a construction dispute with Revitech Pte Ltd. The High Court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, dismissed HPK's appeal against the Senior Assistant Registrar's decision to strike out the Statement of Claim, finding that the claim against the Government did not contain a reasonable cause of action. The court ordered HPK to pay costs to the Government.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ho Pak Kim Realty's claim against the Government for damages due to alleged biased judicial orders in a construction dispute was dismissed for lacking a reasonable cause of action.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Zheng Shaokai of Attorney-General’s Chambers Koo Zhi Xuan of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Zheng Shaokai | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Koo Zhi Xuan | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
4. Facts
- HPK sued the Government for damages based on judicial orders made in construction disputes with Revitech.
- HPK alleged bias and unfairness in decisions made by Lai J and the Court of Appeal.
- The Senior Assistant Registrar allowed an application to strike out the Statement of Claim.
- HPK's claim included dissatisfaction with orders made in Suit No 36 of 2006 and Civil Appeal No 74 of 2010.
- HPK claimed that AR Lee’s order in Assessment of Damages No 60 of 2013 was incorrect.
- The judicial orders in question arose from construction disputes between HPK and Revitech Pte Ltd.
5. Formal Citations
- Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Attorney-General, Suit No 4 of 2014 (Registrar's Appeal No 109 of 2014), [2014] SGHC 176
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Action commenced by Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd | |
| Amendments to Order 1 rr 9(5) and (6) of the Rules of Court came into operation | |
| Appeal dismissed by the High Court | |
| Judgment in Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd [2007] SGHC 194 | |
| Judgment in Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd [2010] SGHC 106 | |
| Judgment in Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 41 | |
| Damages awarded to Revitech by AR Lee |
7. Legal Issues
- Reasonable Cause of Action
- Outcome: The court found that the claim against the Government did not contain a reasonable cause of action.
- Category: Substantive
- Judicial Immunity
- Outcome: The court found that AR Lee is protected under s 79(1) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Interest
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Damages for judicial acts and orders
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 194 | Singapore | Cited as the first tranche of Suit No 36 of 2006, concerning the determination of whether certain documents formed part of the building contract. |
| Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 106 | Singapore | Cited as the second tranche of Suit No 36 of 2006, concerning claims for outstanding progress payments, under-valuation of works, and damages for wrongful termination. |
| Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 41 | Singapore | Cited as a cross-appeal against an Assistant Registrar’s assessment of damages for part of the interlocutory judgment ordered against HPK. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Judicial acts
- Judicial orders
- Construction dispute
- Bias
- Reasonable cause of action
- Striking out
- Assessment of damages
15.2 Keywords
- judicial orders
- construction dispute
- bias
- reasonable cause of action
- striking out
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Construction Law | 60 |
| Litigation | 50 |
| Striking out | 40 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Property Damage | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Construction Dispute
- Judicial Review