Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng: Res Judicata & Abuse of Process in Property Transaction Dispute

In Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Zhang Run Zi's appeal against the decision to strike out her claim (Suit No 2 of 2013) against Koh Kim Seng and Alice Swan concerning a failed property transaction. The court, presided over by George Wei JC, found that the claim was barred by the doctrine of res judicata and constituted an abuse of process, as the issues had been previously litigated in Magistrates’ Courts Suit No 2619 of 2008 and Summons No 72 of 2013. The court ordered Zhang Run Zi to pay costs to the defendants on an indemnity basis.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's appeal dismissed; claim struck out on grounds of res judicata and abuse of process.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court strikes out Zhang Run Zi's claim against Koh Kim Seng for a failed property transaction, citing res judicata and abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

8 July 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Zhang Run Zi	Appellant, Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Looi Wan Hui of JLim Law Corporation
Koh Kim Seng	Respondent, Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah of UniLegal LLC
Alice Swan	Respondent, Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah of UniLegal LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
George Wei	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Looi Wan Hui	JLim Law Corporation
Balasubramaniam Ernest Yogarajah	UniLegal LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiff paid an option fee of $10,200 to purchase property from Defendants.
Plaintiff exercised the option and paid a total of $51,000, representing 5% of the purchase price.
Plaintiff lodged a caveat against the property.
Plaintiff failed to complete the purchase by the agreed date.
Defendants gave Plaintiff a 21-day notice to complete the purchase, but received no response.
Defendants retained the $51,000 and found a second buyer.
Plaintiff lodged a second caveat after the first was expunged.
Plaintiff commenced Magistrates’ Court suit claiming return of $51,000, which was struck out.
Plaintiff filed summons to set aside orders expunging caveats and ordering damages, which was dismissed.

5. Formal Citations

Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another, Suit No 2 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 96 of 2015), [2015] SGHC 175

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-01-03	Plaintiff paid option fee for the property.
2007-01-24	Plaintiff exercised option to purchase the property.
2007-01-25	Plaintiff lodged first caveat against the property.
2007-03-21	Date of legal completion as specified in the sale and purchase agreement.
2007-03-26	Defendants gave Plaintiff a 21-day notice to complete the purchase.
2007-04-26	Defendants gave second buyer an option to purchase.
2007-07-05	Legal completion of second sale and purchase transaction was due.
2007-11-06	Defendants commenced Originating Summons No 1639 of 2007 to lift the Plaintiff’s First Caveat.
2007-11-29	Court ordered Plaintiff’s First Caveat expunged.
2007-12-04	Plaintiff lodged second caveat against the property.
2008-01-02	Defendants commenced Originating Summons No 2 of 2008 to expunge the Plaintiff’s Second Caveat.
2008-01-10	Court ordered Plaintiff’s Second Caveat be expunged.
2008-01-29	Plaintiff commenced Magistrates’ Courts Suit No 2619 of 2008 against the Defendants.
2012-01-01	District Judge dismissed Plaintiff's appeal in Magistrates’ Courts Suit No 2619 of 2008.
2012-05-02	Defendants requested the court to restore the remaining prayers in OS 1639/2007 for hearing.
2012-07-20	Court ordered Plaintiff to pay the Defendants damages to be assessed, with costs on an indemnity basis.
2013-01-02	Plaintiff commenced Suit No 2 of 2013.
2013-01-05	Plaintiff filed Summons No 72 of 2013 to set aside orders of court.
2013-02-07	Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s summons in Summons No 72 of 2013.
2013-09-23	Court of Appeal dismissed Plaintiff's appeal in Civil Appeal No 22 of 2013.
2015-01-19	Defendants filed Summons No 270 of 2015 to strike out the Plaintiff’s entire statement of claim.
2015-02-11	Judgment was issued on assessment of damages hearing (AD 2/2013).
2015-03-18	Assistant registrar allowed Summons No 270 of 2015 in full.
2015-04-01	Plaintiff filed Registrar’s Appeal No 96 of 2015 against the AR’s entire decision.
2015-04-27	High Court dismissed the Plaintiff’s appeal in Registrar’s Appeal No 96 of 2015.
2015-07-09	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court found that the doctrine of res judicata applied to bar the Plaintiff’s entire claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Cause of action estoppel
  - Issue estoppel
  - Abuse of process
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453
  - [2009] 2 SLR(R) 814
  - [2014] 3 SLR 1161
  - [1964] P 181
  - [1991] 2 AC 93
  - [1992] 2 SLR(R) 382
  - [1965] 1 QB 232
  - [1947] 2 All ER 255
  - [1948] 1 All ER 227
  - [1993] AC 410
  - [2009] 1 SLR(R) 875
  - [1967] 1 AC 853
  - [1977] 1 AC 1
  - [2005] 3 SLR(R) 157
  - [1919] 1 KB 328
  - [2013] 4 SLR 253
  - [2011] 1 SLR 998
  - (1843) 3 Hare 100
  - [2002] 2 AC 1
  - [2000] 1 SLR(R) 53
  - [2003] 3 SLR(R) 644
  - [1999] 1 WLR 1482
  - [1996] 1 WLR 1351
Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that allowing the suit to proceed would be an abuse of process, as the Plaintiff was attempting to re-litigate issues already decided.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Re-litigation of previously decided issues
  - Vexatious litigation
  - Unjust harassment
- Related Cases:
  - (1843) 3 Hare 100
  - [2002] 2 AC 1
  - [2000] 1 SLR(R) 53
  - [2003] 3 SLR(R) 644
  - [1999] 1 WLR 1482

8. Remedies Sought

Return of $51,000
Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited for the principles of cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, and the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 814	Singapore	Cited for the principles of cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, and the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Manharlal Trikamdas Mody v Sumikin Bussan International (HK) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 1161	Singapore	Cited for the requirements for cause of action estoppel to operate.
Thoday v Thoday	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1964] P 181	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of cause of action estoppel.
Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc	House of Lords	Yes	[1991] 2 AC 93	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that cause of action estoppel operates absolutely, with no exception even for special circumstances.
Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd (in receivership) v Intraco Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR(R) 382	Singapore	Cited for the definition of 'cause of action' and its meaning in different contexts.
Letang v Cooper	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1965] 1 QB 232	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of 'cause of action' as the factual situation entitling a person to obtain a remedy.
Greenhalgh v Mallard	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1947] 2 All ER 255	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that cause of action estoppel applies even if the second action is framed differently from a legal point of view.
Wright v Bennett	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1948] 1 All ER 227	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that cause of action estoppel applies when the plaintiff is calling on the defendants to meet the same old charge.
Republic of India v Indian Steamship Co Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1993] AC 410	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that there is identity of cause of action if the factual basis relied on in the two actions is the same.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 875	Singapore	Cited for the twin principles underlying the doctrine of res judicata: finality of judicial decisions and protection from vexatious multiplication of suits.
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No.2)	House of Lords	Yes	[1967] 1 AC 853	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court can consider all relevant material in determining the identity of cause of action.
DPP v Humphrys	House of Lords	Yes	[1977] 1 AC 1	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court will inquire into realities, and not mere technicalities.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 157	Singapore	Cited for the requirements for establishing an issue estoppel.
Jones v Lewis	King's Bench	Yes	[1919] 1 KB 328	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that determinations which will found an issue estoppel may be of law, fact, or mixed fact and law.
Dynasty Line Ltd (in liquidation) v Sia Sukamto and another	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 253	Singapore	Cited for the principle that issue estoppel does not apply where there has been no actual investigation of the point.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 998	Singapore	Cited for the applicability of the Arnold exception in Singapore, which creates an exception to issue estoppel where the decision relied on as the basis of issue estoppel contains a very egregious error.
Henderson v Henderson	Court of Chancery	Yes	(1843) 3 Hare 100	England and Wales	Cited as the locus classicus on the defence of abuse of process.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm)	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 1	England and Wales	Cited for the defence of abuse of process.
Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 53	Singapore	Cited for the defence of abuse of process.
Kwa Ban Cheong v Kuah Boon Sek and others	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 644	Singapore	Cited for the defence of abuse of process.
Bradford & Bingley Building Society v Seddon	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 WLR 1482	England and Wales	Cited for the defence of abuse of process.
Possfund Custodian Trustee Ltd v Diamond	Unspecified	Yes	[1996] 1 WLR 1351	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that res judicata can arise in respect of a final decision on an interlocutory application.
Koh Kim Seng and another v Zhang Run-Zi	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 79	Singapore	Cited for the Plaintiff’s submissions regarding the Defendants’ misrepresentation and failure to send letters relating to the completion to her correct address.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Res judicata
Abuse of process
Cause of action estoppel
Issue estoppel
Property transaction
Caveat
Misrepresentation
Breach of contract
Failed property transaction

15.2 Keywords

Res judicata
Abuse of process
Property transaction
Singapore
High Court
Civil litigation

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Res Judicata	95
Abuse of Process	90
Civil Procedure	80
Property Law	70
Misrepresentation	60
Contract Law	60
Estoppel	50
Commercial Disputes	40

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law
Property Law
Res Judicata
Abuse of Process