Mycitydeal Ltd v Villas International: Security for Costs Application

Mycitydeal Ltd and others, Groupon entities, sued Villas International Property Pte Ltd and others in the Singapore High Court. The plaintiffs' claim was struck out for failing to furnish security for costs. The plaintiffs then sought security for costs against the first defendant's counterclaim. Choo Han Teck J dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal, upholding the assistant registrar's decision, citing delay, the plaintiffs' conduct, and the potential to stymie the first defendant's counterclaim. The decision was made on 2014-04-21.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed. Costs here and below will be costs in the cause.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding security for costs. The court dismissed Mycitydeal's application, citing delay, conduct, and potential to stymie counterclaim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Second defendantDefendantIndividualAppeal UpheldWon
Third defendantDefendantIndividualAppeal UpheldWon
Fourth defendantDefendantIndividualAppeal UpheldWon
Mycitydeal Ltd (trading as Groupon UK)Plaintiff, AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Villas International Property Pte LtdDefendant, RespondentCorporationAppeal UpheldWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nazirah K DinColin Ng & Partners LLP
Rasanathan s/o SothynathanColin Ng & Partners LLP
Navinder SinghNavin & Co LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs are Groupon entities.
  2. Defendants are merchants promoting vacation packages.
  3. Plaintiffs sought security for costs against the first defendant's counterclaim.
  4. Plaintiffs' claim was struck out for failing to furnish security.
  5. The first defendant is facing financial difficulties.
  6. Plaintiffs applied for security late in the proceedings.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Mycitydeal Ltd (trading as Groupon UK) and others v Villas International Property Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 281 of 2012 (Registrar's Appeal No 77 of 2014), [2014] SGHC 81

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiffs filed writ of summons
Mareva injunction granted against defendants
Defendants filed their defence
Defendants amended their defence and included a counterclaim
Defendants' application for security for costs against the plaintiffs allowed
Injunction discharged
Plaintiffs requested two weeks to furnish the security
Plaintiffs' claim struck out for failure to furnish security
Directions given for exchange of affidavits of evidence in chief
Plaintiffs wrote to the defendants to request security for costs
AEICs were supposed to have been exchanged
Assistant Registrar dismissed the plaintiffs’ application
Judgment reserved
Trial scheduled

7. Legal Issues

  1. Security for Costs
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal for security for costs, citing delay, conduct, and potential to stymie the defendant's counterclaim.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delay in application
      • Financial status of defendant
      • Potential to stymie counterclaim
    • Related Cases:
      • [1999] 1 SLR(R) 112
      • [2011] 4 SLR 580
      • [2001] SGHC 280
      • [2008] 4 SLR(R) 224

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Security for Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Conspiracy
  • Fraud

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • E-commerce
  • Tourism

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v Puay Kim Seng and anotherHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 112SingaporeCited for the principle that the court can exercise its discretion to determine if the application for security should be allowed, having regard to all the circumstances of the case.
Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chang Sing En and othersHigh CourtYes[2011] 4 SLR 580SingaporeCited for the principle that delay can be a factor taken into account when the court exercises its discretion to grant security for costs.
L&M Concrete Specialists Pte Ltd v United Eng Contractors Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2001] SGHC 280SingaporeCited for the proposition that the court had to take all the circumstances into account in deciding how its discretion was to be exercised.
Bank Mellat v NikpourCourt of AppealYes[1985] FSR 87England and WalesCited to describe the mareva injunction as one of the nuclear weapons of litigation.
Frantonios Marine Services Pte Ltd and other v Kay Swee TuanHigh CourtYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 224SingaporeCited for the principle that the court should balance the right to have cost orders satisfied against the equity of a plaintiff pursuing its claim.

13. Applicable Rules

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

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security for costs
  • Counterclaim
  • Mareva injunction
  • Impecuniosity
  • Going concern

15.2 Keywords

  • Security for costs
  • Groupon
  • Villas International
  • Counterclaim
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Security for Costs80
Civil Procedure70
Company Law60
Contract Law50
Commercial Disputes40
Banking and Finance30
Arbitration20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Security for Costs