Ho Soo Fong v Revitech Pte Ltd: Extension of Time to Appeal Costs Order in Construction Dispute

In Ho Soo Fong v Revitech Pte Ltd, the Court of Appeal of Singapore dismissed Mr. Ho Soo Fong's application for an extension of time to appeal the High Court's decision in Originating Summons No 563 of 2017, which had dismissed Mr. Ho's attempt to set aside a costs order made against him in Suit No 36 of 2006, a construction dispute case. The Court of Appeal found the intended appeal to be without merit and an attempt to re-open concluded matters.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Court of Appeal dismissed Ho Soo Fong's application for an extension of time to appeal a costs order, finding the appeal devoid of merit.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ho Soo FongApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Revitech Pte LtdRespondentCorporationWonWon
Ho Pak Kim Realty Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporation

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudge of AppealYes
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Yong Zhee HoeSurian & Partners
Ong Xin Ying SamanthaWNLEX LLC

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Ho sought an extension of time to appeal the dismissal of his application to set aside a costs order.
  2. The costs order was made against Mr. Ho personally, as the alter ego of HPK, in Suit No 36 of 2006.
  3. Mr. Ho had previously been given the opportunity to address the Court of Appeal on the merits of the costs order.
  4. Mr. Ho consented to a vexatious litigant order.
  5. Mr. Ho claimed he only had notice of the Costs Order as late as 23 August 2016 when costs were taxed.
  6. The Court of Appeal found that Mr. Ho was aware of the Costs Order by 11 July 2014 at the latest.

5. Formal Citations

    6. Timeline

    DateEvent
    HPK files writ of summons against Revitech in S 36/2006
    First tranche of S 36/2006
    First tranche of S 36/2006
    Second tranche of S 36/2006 heard before Lai J
    Second tranche of S 36/2006 heard before Lai J
    Lai J delivers judgment for second tranche of S 36/2006
    Third tranche of S 36/2006 heard before Lai J
    Third tranche of S 36/2006 heard before Lai J
    Lai J delivers judgment for third tranche of S 36/2006, reserving the issue of costs
    HPK files notice of appeal against the merits of Lai J’s decision in the third tranche
    Revitech files written submissions seeking costs order against Ho personally on indemnity basis
    Costs hearing for S 36/2006, Lai J issues the Costs Order against Ho personally if HPK unwilling or unable to pay
    Court of Appeal hears CA 74 and reserves the Costs Order pending assessment of liability and damages
    HPK’s counsel indicates that HPK not participating in assessment of liability and damages
    Revitech extracts the Costs Order in ORC 6837/2013
    Assessment of liability and damages hearing pursuant to CA 74 without HPK’s participation, resulting in damages in favour of Revitech
    HPK’s counsel Mr Edwin Lee discharges himself
    Revitech files written submissions requesting for Ho to be appointed to represent HPK before the Court of Appeal for CA 74 for reinstatement of Costs Order
    Hearing before Court of Appeal on Costs Order adjourned
    Court of Appeal hearing on Costs Order, Costs Order reinstated
    Ho files SUM 3656 to set aside the Court of Appeal’s decision to reinstate the Costs Order
    Court of Appeal hears and dismisses SUM 3656
    Ho files SUM 6346 to stay the execution of the Costs Order
    Court of Appeal hears and dismisses SUM 6346
    Ho files SUM 210 to vary the decisions in S 36/2006 and CA 74
    Court of Appeal hears and dismisses SUM 210
    Court of Appeal delivers judgment in AGQ v Attorney-General and another appeal [2015] 4 SLR 760
    Costs Order taxed at $249,600 (with disbursements of $126,414.92) in BC 152/2010
    Ho files OS 563 to add himself as party to S 36/2006 and to set aside the Costs Order
    The AG files OS 892 seeking to prevent Ho and HPK from continuing proceedings related to S 36/2006 without leave of the High Court
    Ho consents to the vexatious litigant order
    Ho files ex parte OS 1220 to seek leave to pursue OS 563, which is subsequently granted
    OS 563 is heard and dismissed by Lai SJ
    Ho files ex parte OS 223 to institute an appeal against OS 563
    Leave is granted in OS 223
    Order granting leave in OS 223 is extracted
    Ho files OS 9 seeking extension of time to file notice of appeal

    7. Legal Issues

    1. Extension of Time to File Appeal
      • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for extension of time, finding the intended appeal had no chance of success.
      • Category: Procedural
      • Related Cases:
        • [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757
    2. Costs Order
      • Outcome: The court found that Mr. Ho had been given ample opportunity to address the court on the Costs Order and that the matter had long been concluded.
      • Category: Substantive

    8. Remedies Sought

    1. Extension of time to file notice of appeal

    9. Cause of Actions

    • No cause of actions

    10. Practice Areas

    • Civil Litigation
    • Appeals

    11. Industries

    • Construction

    12. Cited Cases

    Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
    Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suitHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757SingaporeCited for the four factors a court should consider when faced with an application for extension of time.
    AGQ v Attorney-General and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2015] 4 SLR 760SingaporeCited as a case where Ho and HPK had taken out suit against the Government of Singapore.

    13. Applicable Rules

    Rule Name
    No applicable rules

    14. Applicable Statutes

    Statute NameJurisdiction
    Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed)Singapore

    15. Key Terms and Keywords

    15.1 Key Terms

    • Extension of time
    • Costs order
    • Vexatious litigant
    • Alter ego
    • Construction dispute

    15.2 Keywords

    • Extension of time
    • Costs order
    • Appeal
    • Civil procedure
    • Singapore
    • Construction dispute

    17. Areas of Law

    Area NameRelevance Score
    Civil Procedure75
    Civil Practice75
    Appeal60
    Costs50
    Corporate Litigation30
    Corporate Law30
    Company Law30
    Restructuring and Insolvency20
    Companies Act20
    Corporate Insolvency20

    16. Subjects

    • Civil Procedure
    • Appeals
    • Costs