Tan Chin Lay Evelyn v Cheng Soo May Stacy: Amendment of Pleadings Dispute
In Tan Chin Lay Evelyn v Cheng Soo May Stacy, the Singapore High Court heard appeals regarding the amendment of pleadings in a breach of contract claim and counterclaim. The plaintiff, Tan Chin Lay Evelyn, appealed against the decision to allow the defendant, Cheng Soo May Stacy, to make certain amendments to her Defence and Counterclaim. The court dismissed both appeals, finding no basis to strike out the amendments and ordering costs accordingly.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Both appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case concerning amendment of pleadings in a breach of contract suit. The court dismissed appeals related to the amendments.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Chin Lay Evelyn | Plaintiff, Defendant in Counterclaim | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Cheng Soo May Stacy | Defendant, Plaintiff in Counterclaim | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Chenthil Kumar Kumarasingam | Oon & Bazul LLP |
| Goh Peizhi Adeline | Oon & Bazul LLP |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff was a financial services consultant with AIA.
- Defendant was a district manager and the plaintiff was a member of the defendant’s agency.
- Plaintiff and defendant formed a contract to govern their FSC-DM partnership.
- Plaintiff filed a suit against the defendant for breach of contract.
- The defendant sought to amend her Defence and Counterclaim.
- The plaintiff disputed parts of the defendant’s pleading.
- The defendant filed Summons No 5415 of 2017 for leave to make amendments to DC Am3.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Chin Lay Evelyn v Cheng Soo May Stacy, Suit No 661 of 2015, [2018] SGHC 240
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff filed statement of claim. | |
| Defendant filed defence and counterclaim. | |
| Plaintiff filed reply and defence to counterclaim. | |
| Defendant filed Summons No 4778 of 2016 for leave to make amendments to DC. | |
| Defendant was granted leave to amend DC and to file Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No 1). | |
| Defendant filed DC Am1. | |
| Plaintiff filed Reply and Defence to Counterclaim (Amendment No 1). | |
| Plaintiff was granted leave to amend SOC and to file SOC Am1. | |
| Plaintiff filed SOC Am1. | |
| Defendant filed DC Am2. | |
| Defendant was granted leave to amend DC Am2 to correct typographical errors. | |
| Defendant filed DC Am3. | |
| Plaintiff filed Reply and Defence to Counterclaim (Amendment No 2). | |
| Plaintiff filed Summons No 4488 of 2017 to strike out parts of the defendant’s pleading in DC Am2. | |
| AR Yeo allowed some of the amendments in DC Am3, and struck out those which were not consequential to SOC Am1. | |
| Plaintiff filed Registrar’s Appeal No 328 of 2017 against that part of AR Yeo’s decision which refused to strike out some of the amendments in DC Am3. | |
| Defendant filed Summons No 5415 of 2017 for leave to make amendments to DC Am3. | |
| Hearing of SUM 5415/2017 before Assistant Registrar Lee Yuxian Jay was adjourned. | |
| Hearing before AR Lee continued. | |
| Hearing before AR Lee continued. | |
| AR Lee granted the defendant leave to make the proposed amendments to DC Am3 inclusive of the Disputed Amendment. | |
| Plaintiff filed RA 146/2018 to appeal against part of AR Lee’s decision. | |
| Defendant filed RA 147/2018 to appeal only against AR Lee’s decision on costs in SUM 5415/2017. | |
| RA 328/2017 heard. | |
| RA 328/2017 heard. | |
| RA 146/2018 and RA 147/2018 heard. | |
| Judgment Date | |
| Plaintiff filed Civil Appeal No 157 of 2018 to the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court allowed the disputed amendment, finding that it clarified existing pleadings and did not introduce a new cause of action.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Addition of new factual material
- Limitation period
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 20 rules 5(1), 5(2) and 5(5) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Financial services consultant
- District manager
- Defence and counterclaim
- Statement of claim
- Amendment of pleadings
- Leave to amend
- Rules of Court
- Cause of action
15.2 Keywords
- Amendment
- Pleadings
- Contract
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Appellate Practice | 30 |
| Contract Law | 25 |
| Financial Services | 15 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law