SIC College v Yeo: Improper Evidence Rejection & Security for Costs in Civil Procedure

In SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal against the High Court's decision regarding a counterclaim. The main claim by SIC College was dismissed due to failure to provide security for costs. The respondents, including former employees, succeeded in their counterclaim. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the High Court judge improperly rejected relevant evidence related to the counterclaim. The court ordered a retrial in the District Court and set aside the order for non-party costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed and a retrial ordered for the counterclaim in the District Court. The order for non-party costs was set aside.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal over counterclaim allowed due to improper rejection of evidence. The court addresses security for costs and third-party costs.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
SIC COLLEGE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PTE LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS SIC EDUCATION GROUP PTE LTD)Appellant, PlaintiffCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartialPrakash Pillai, Koh Junxiang, Clement Ong Yuan Kun
YEO POH SIAHRespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal allowedLostJordan Tan, Keith Han
KOO KHEE CHONGRespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal allowedLostJordan Tan, Keith Han
CHUA PUAY CHOO ALVINNARespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal allowedLostJordan Tan, Keith Han
LINCOLN COLLEGIATE OF BUSINESS AND TECHNOLOGY PRIVATE LIMITEDRespondent, DefendantCorporationAppeal allowedLostJordan Tan, Keith Han

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealYes
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJudge of AppealYes
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Prakash PillaiClasis LLC
Koh JunxiangClasis LLC
Clement Ong Yuan KunClasis LLC
Jordan TanCavenagh Law LLP
Keith HanCavenagh Law LLP

4. Facts

  1. The Appellant's main claim was dismissed due to failure to provide security for costs.
  2. The Respondents succeeded in their counterclaim against the Appellant.
  3. The Judge refused to consider certain evidence related to the main claim in the trial of the counterclaim.
  4. The Appellant argued that the rejected evidence was relevant to refute the Respondents' evidence in the counterclaim.
  5. The Judge relied on a ledger (Printout) and a document (Supramaniam's Document) to support the counterclaim.
  6. The Appellant argued that the Printout was inadmissible hearsay and that the Judge failed to properly consider the discretion to exclude such evidence.
  7. The Appellant contended that the transactions formed part of a larger series of transactions and a fraudulent scheme.

5. Formal Citations

  1. SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others, Civil Appeal No 45 of 2015, [2016] SGCA 5

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lincoln Collegiate of Business and Technology Private Limited incorporated.
Harbridge Agreement signed between the Appellant and Lincoln College.
SICC Agreement signed between TSG, the Appellant, and SIC College Pte Ltd.
Mutual Release Agreement signed between TSG, the Appellant, and SICC.
Second Harbridge Agreement signed between TSG and Lincoln College.
The Appellant and TSG filed a Writ of Summons against the first three Respondents.
Original Defence filed.
Respondents indicated intention to apply for security for costs.
Deadline for application for security for costs.
Defence amended to institute the counterclaim by Ken Yeo against the Appellant.
Respondents filed Summons No 3367 of 2014 to seek security for costs from the Appellant.
Hearing regarding security for costs.
Deadline for filing of affidavits of evidence-in-chief.
Assistant Registrar ordered the Appellant to furnish security for costs.
Parties appeared before the Judge for a pre-trial conference.
Deadline for Appellant to provide security for costs.
Appellant's former counsel informed the court that the Appellant had failed to provide security for costs.
Pre-trial conference held.
First day of trial; Judge granted Mr Pereira's application to discharge himself.
Judge dismissed the Appellant’s application for extension of time and dismissed the main claim.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Improper Rejection of Evidence
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the Judge had wrongly determined the scope of the evidence and had erred in excluding the Rejected Evidence.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to consider relevant facts
      • Incorrect determination of the scope of evidence
  2. Security for Costs
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal made observations on the appropriateness of ordering security for costs where the claim and counterclaim raise the same issues.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Delay in application
      • Overlap between claim and counterclaim
  3. Third Party Costs
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal set aside the Judge's decision to order non-party costs.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Close connection between non-party and proceedings
      • Non-party causing the incurring of costs

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Account of Profits

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Misappropriation of Funds

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Education

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and othersHigh CourtYes[2015] SGHC 133SingaporeCited as the decision being appealed against.
Basil Anthony Herman v Premier Security Co-operative Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 110SingaporeCited for the principle that every litigant has a general right to bring all evidence relevant to his or her case to the attention of the court.
Dumrul v Standard Chartered BankHigh CourtYes[2010] 2 CLC 661EnglandCited for the principle that facts relevant to the main claim may also be relevant to the defence to the counterclaim.
V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 1422SingaporeCited for the principle that procedure is the handmaiden of justice, not its master.
Lu Bang Song v Teambuild Construction Pte Ltd and Another and Another AppealHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 49SingaporeCited for the principle that the underlying consideration of the law of pleadings is to prevent surprises arising at trial.
Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2015] 2 SLR 686SingaporeCited for the principle that the court is required to properly consider the discretion to exclude evidence under s 32(3) of the Evidence Act.
Wan Lai Ting v Kea Kah KimHigh CourtYes[2014] 4 SLR 795SingaporeCited for the principle that it is highly prejudicial for a party to rely on evidence that the maker of the statement can testify to but chooses not to do so.
Re Ice-Mack Pte Ltd (in liquidation)High CourtYes[1989] 2 SLR(R) 283SingaporeCited for the principle that the obvious danger of relying on account book entries is even greater if the claimant or one of his affiliates was the one who was making the records.
Chia Bak Eng and another v Punggol Bus Service CoFederal CourtYes[1965–1967] SLR(R) 270SingaporeCited for the principle that the appellate court declined to simply reverse the conclusions of the learned judge and accept the evidence of Lim as true, primarily on the basis that this required a determination of Lim’s credibility.
Ku Chiu Chung Woody v Tang Tin SungCourt of AppealYes[2003] HKEC 727Hong KongCited for the principle that the court has the power to order a retrial even if it was not sought by either party.
Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v Puay Kim Seng and anotherCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 112SingaporeCited for the principle that the court has discretion to award security for costs.
Autoweld Systems Ltd v Kito Enterprises LLCCourt of AppealYes[2010] EWCA Civ 1469England and WalesCited for the underlying rationale for ordering a plaintiff to give security for costs.
L & M Concrete Specialists Pte Ltd v United Eng Contractors Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2001] 3 SLR(R) 208SingaporeCited for the non-exhaustive circumstances as being among those which the court might take into account when ordering security for costs.
Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star LtdCourt of AppealYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 427SingaporeCited for the principle that it is often inappropriate to award security for costs where the claim and counterclaim are co-extensive.
Christou v Stanton Partners Australasia Pty LtdCourt of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western AustraliaYes[2011] WASCA 176AustraliaCited for the principle that a plaintiff is entitled to know at the earliest opportunity whether it will be required to provide security.
Ong Jane Rebecca v Pricewaterhousecoopers and othersHigh CourtYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 796SingaporeCited for the principle that even if there is some overlap between the defences and counterclaims, it does not mean that no security can be ordered.
B J Crabtree (Insulation) Ltd v GPT Communication Systems LtdCourt of AppealYes(1990) 59 BLR 43England and WalesCited for the principle that where the claim and counterclaim raise the same issues it will not usually be just to make an order for security for costs in favour of the defendant.
Anglo Irish Asset Finance Plc v Flood and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2011] EWCA Civ 799England and WalesCited for the principle that the court must always consider the particular circumstances of the case when deciding whether to order security for costs.
Hutchison Telephone (UK) Ltd v Ultimate Response LtdCourt of AppealYes[1993] BCLC 307England and WalesCited for the principle that an order for security should not ordinarily be made if all the defendant is doing, in substance, is to defend himself.
Pannone v Aadvark DigitalHigh CourtYes[2013] 4 Costs LO 607England and WalesCited for the principle that the justice of the case will be affected by the considerations referred to in the various cases.
DB Trustees (Hong Kong) Ltd v Consult Asia Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 542SingaporeCited for the general principles on when non-party costs should be ordered.
Dymocks Franchise Systems (NSW) Pty Ltd v Todd and others (Associated Industrial Finance Pty Ltd, Third Party)Privy CouncilYes[2004] 1 WLR 2807AustraliaCited for the principle that the ultimate question is whether in all the circumstances it is just to make the order for non-party costs.
Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 496SingaporeCited for the principle that the two factors in DB Trustees are by no means conclusive and the award of costs is ultimately a matter of discretion.
Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd v Lim Eng Hock Peter and others (Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and others, third parties)High CourtYes[2011] 1 SLR 582SingaporeCited for the principle that the fact that the non-parties are the only shareholders and directors of a company should not be the overriding factor in consideration for non-party costs.
Nanyang Law LLC v Alphomega Research Group LtdHigh CourtYes[2012] 4 SLR 1153SingaporeCited for the principle that ordering costs against a non-party and shareholder of an impecunious litigant company is to pierce the corporate veil.
Metalloy Supplies Ltd v MA (UK) LtdCourt of AppealYes[1997] 1 WLR 1613England and WalesCited for the principle that it is not sufficient to render a director liable for costs that he was a director of the company and caused it to bring or defend proceedings which he funded and which ultimately failed.
Fulton Motors Limited v Toyota (GB) LimitedCourt of AppealYes[2000] CP Rep 24England and WalesCited for the principle that where directors who were also guarantors of the debt of the company pursued an appeal that was not an appeal which on any realistic objective assessment could be said to have good prospects of success, it was appropriate to exercise the power to make the non-parties pay costs.
Goodwood Recoveries Ltd v BreenCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 WLR 2723England and WalesCited for the principle that different considerations may apply where a company is forced to defend a claim as compared to a case where the company itself is the claimant.
Taylor & Anor v Pace Developments LtdCourt of AppealYes[1991] BCC 406England and WalesCited for the principle that in the great majority of cases the directors of an insolvent company which defends proceedings brought against it should not be at personal risk of costs.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence ActSingapore
Companies ActSingapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Ed)Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security for costs
  • Counterclaim
  • Rejected evidence
  • Running account
  • Fictitious entries
  • Third party costs
  • Misappropriation
  • Licensing agreements
  • Printout
  • Substantial wrong

15.2 Keywords

  • Civil procedure
  • Evidence
  • Security for costs
  • Third party costs
  • Counterclaim
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Evidence
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Costs

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Evidence
  • Contract Law