Antariksa Logistics v Nurdian Cuaca: Res Judicata & Striking Out Application
In Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v Nurdian Cuaca and others, the Singapore High Court addressed whether a case management decision to litigate incrementally constitutes an abuse of process under the extended doctrine of res judicata. The plaintiffs, Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd, Pacific Global (S) Pte Ltd, and Fastindo (Singapore) Pte Ltd, brought claims of deceit, conspiracy to defraud, and unjust enrichment against eight defendants, after a prior suit against only one defendant for conversion. The court allowed the appeals by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Defendants and struck out the claims against them, but dismissed the appeal by the 2nd Defendant.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeals by the 1st, 3rd, 4th, and 5th Defendants are allowed and the Plaintiffs’ claims against these Defendants are struck out in their entirety. The appeal by the 2nd Defendant is dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case regarding abuse of process under res judicata. Court struck out claims against some defendants, allowed against others.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ANTARIKSA LOGISTICS PTE LTD | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claims Struck Out | Lost | |
| PACIFIC GLOBAL (S) PTE LTD | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claims Struck Out | Lost | |
| FASTINDO (SINGAPORE) PTE LTD | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claims Struck Out | Lost | |
| NURDIAN CUACA | Defendant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| D’LEAGUE PTE LTD | Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| TAN TZU WEI | Defendant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| WEE KIAN TECK BRENDAN | Defendant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| CHAN MUI AYE ROSA | Defendant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| JOHNNY ABBAS | Defendant | Individual | Unknown | Neutral | |
| RADIUS ARTHADJAYA | Defendant | Individual | Unknown | Neutral | |
| PT PROLINK LOGISTICS INDONESIA | Defendant | Corporation | Unknown | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| George Wei | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs consolidated goods for shipment from Singapore to Jakarta.
- 1st Defendant agreed to effect transhipment of the Cargo to Indonesia.
- Cargo could not be cleared for import into Indonesia.
- Plaintiffs paid Transportation Expenses for re-exportation.
- Cargo was consigned to McTrans instead of the Plaintiffs.
- Plaintiffs commenced the 2009 Suit against McTrans as the sole defendant for conversion.
- Plaintiffs commenced the present suit against eight defendants for deceit, conspiracy to defraud and unjust enrichment.
5. Formal Citations
- Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v Nurdian Cuaca and others, Suit No 950 of 2015(Registrar’s Appeal Nos 196, 197, 272 and 273 of 2016), [2017] SGHC 60
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs consolidated 30 container loads of goods for transportation from Singapore to Jakarta, Indonesia. | |
| 1st Defendant entered into an oral agreement with Hari to effect transhipment of the Cargo to Indonesia. | |
| Plaintiffs shipped the Cargo from Singapore to Jakarta. | |
| Sutandi was issued with two pro-forma Bills of Lading in respect of the shipment of the Cargo from Jakarta to Singapore. | |
| Cargo was consigned to McTrans instead of the 1st Plaintiff. | |
| Cargo arrived in Singapore. McTrans received the Cargo and transported it back to its premises. | |
| McTrans purportedly broke the seals of the 30 containers without the Plaintiffs’ consent and authorisation. | |
| Hari met the 1st Defendant in Jakarta, where the latter allegedly made an extortionate demand of Rp 45 billion in return for the release of the Cargo. | |
| 1st Plaintiff sent a letter of demand to McTrans, demanding the confirmation of the delivery up of the Cargo by 3pm on that day. | |
| Plaintiffs commenced the 2009 Suit against McTrans as the sole defendant. | |
| A separate application was made for a further 13 plaintiffs, who were owners of the Group B Cargo, to be added to the 2009 Suit. | |
| Trial for the 2009 Suit was heard over 20 days from October 2011 to February 2012. | |
| Grounds of decision in the 2009 Suit released. | |
| Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal without written grounds. | |
| Plaintiffs applied to tax their costs for the 2009 Suit, following which McTrans was ordered to pay them S$858,077.38. | |
| Plaintiffs served a statutory demand on McTrans for S$908,488.97. | |
| McTrans was wound up. | |
| The present suit was commenced by the Plaintiffs against the eight Defendants. | |
| Appeals were heard before George Wei J over two days on 3 and 4 November 2016. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that bringing the present suit against some of the defendants amounted to an abuse of process under the extended doctrine of res judicata.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Incremental litigation
- Re-litigation of issues
- Related Cases:
- [2012] 4 SLR 250
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court struck out the claims against some defendants due to abuse of process, but not against others based on insufficient particulars.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Insufficient Particulars
- Scandalous, frivolous or vexatious claims
8. Remedies Sought
- Indemnification for liabilities, losses, and expenses
- Damages to be assessed
- Payment of Transportation Expenses
- Payment of Extortion Monies
9. Cause of Actions
- Deceit
- Conspiracy to Defraud
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Logistics
- Freight Forwarding
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v McTrans Cargo (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 250 | Singapore | Central to the decision; details the findings of fact in the initial suit, which are critical to determining whether the subsequent suit is an abuse of process. |
| The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties) and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1104 | Singapore | Endorses the principle from Henderson v Henderson regarding res judicata. |
| Henderson v Henderson | English Court | Yes | (1843) 3 Hare 100 | England | Sets out the general principle of res judicata. |
| Greenhalgh v Mallard | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1947] 2 All ER 255 | England | Explains that res judicata covers issues or facts which are so clearly part of the subject matter of the litigation. |
| Michaels and another v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd and Others | English High Court | Yes | [2001] Ch 493 | England | Illustrates that the doctrine of res judicata is not limited to re-litigation between the same parties. |
| Kwa Ban Cheong v Kuah Boon Sek | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 644 | Singapore | States that it is not necessary for the defendant in the later proceedings to have been a party to the earlier suit before the doctrine can apply. |
| Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] EWCA Civ 1260 | England | Highlights that defendants in the second set of proceedings cannot be said to be vexed for a second time when the original action was brought against one party and the second action is brought against completely different parties. |
| Johnson v Gore Wood & Co | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 1 | England | Establishes that the question of whether a litigant should be prevented from taking a point that could have been raised in earlier proceedings is a broad, merits-based judgment. |
| Gleeson v J Wippell & Co Ltd | Unknown | Yes | [1977] 1 WLR 510 | Unknown | Cited within Johnson v Gore Wood & Co for the test of sufficient degree of identity between two parties. |
| Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Lists the relevant factors the court should consider when applying the extended doctrine of res judicata. |
| Angeli Luki Kotonou v National Westminster Bank plc | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] EWCA Civ 1106 | England | States that the categories of abuse of process are not closed, and what is required is an intense focus on the facts of the case. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | States that the Court should not carry out a minute and protracted examination of the documents and the facts of the case. |
| The “Osprey” | High Court | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1099 | Singapore | States that the Court should not carry out a minute and protracted examination of the documents and the facts of the case. |
| Ko Teck Siang and another v Low Fong Mei and another and other actions | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 22 | Singapore | States that the Court should not usurp the proper function of the trial court. |
| Wenlock v Moloney | Unknown | Yes | [1965] 2 All ER 871 | Unknown | Cited within Ko Teck Siang and another v Low Fong Mei and another and other actions for the principle that the Court should not usurp the proper function of the trial court. |
| Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police | House of Lords | Yes | [1981] 3 All ER 727 | England | States that the doctrine aims to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. |
| State Bank of New South Wales Ltd v Alexander Stenhouse Ltd and another case | Unknown | Yes | (1997) Aust Tort Rep 81-423 | Australia | States that the doctrine aims to avoid bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. |
| Stuart v Goldberg Linde (a firm) and others | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] EWCA Civ 2 | England | Discusses whether a case management decision by a plaintiff to litigate incrementally constitutes an abuse of process. |
| Smith v Linskills (a firm) and another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 1 WLR 763 | England | States that it would be an affront to any coherent system of justice if there subsisted two final but inconsistent decisions of courts of competent jurisdiction. |
| Paul Rippon v Chilcotin Pty Ltd & ors | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | (2001) 53 NSWLR 198 | Australia | Illustrates a case where the purchasers were seeking to re-litigate the issue of reliance which they had lost in the Supreme Court. |
| Chan Kern Miang v Kea Resources Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 85 | Singapore | States that liability in conspiracy is joint and several; they were not obliged to sue all the co-conspirators. |
| The “Dolphina” | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 992 | Singapore | Defines unlawful means conspiracy and the requirements for attributing knowledge to a company. |
| Quah Kay Tee v Ong and Co Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 637 | Singapore | Cited within The Dolphina for the definition of unlawful means conspiracy. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Res Judicata
- Abuse of Process
- Extended Doctrine
- Case Management Decision
- Incremental Litigation
- Conversion
- Deceit
- Conspiracy to Defraud
- Unjust Enrichment
- Striking Out
- Transportation Expenses
- Extortion Monies
- Head Bailee
15.2 Keywords
- Res Judicata
- Abuse of Process
- Striking Out
- Civil Procedure
- Logistics
- Freight Forwarding
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Res Judicata | 90 |
| Abuse of Process | 85 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Extended doctrine | 70 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 60 |
| Conspiracy by Unlawful Means | 55 |
| Unjust Enrichment | 50 |
| Freight Forwarding | 35 |
| Company Law | 30 |
| Contract Law | 25 |
| Torts | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Res Judicata
- Abuse of Process