StreetSine Singapore v Singapore Institute: Security for Costs Application
StreetSine Singapore Pte Ltd, the Plaintiff, sued the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers and others, the Defendants, in the High Court of Singapore. The Defendants applied for security for costs, arguing that StreetSine Singapore Pte Ltd would be unable to pay their costs if they were successful in defending the suit. The court dismissed the applications, finding that the Defendants had not provided credible evidence to demonstrate that StreetSine Singapore Pte Ltd would be unable to pay the costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Applications dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Applications for security for costs were dismissed as the defendants failed to prove StreetSine Singapore would be unable to pay costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| StreetSine Singapore Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers | Defendant | Association | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Lim Lan Yuan | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Tan Choi Heng | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Teo Chin Teck John | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Goh Heng Hoon (Wu Hengyun) | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Loh Kai Chieh | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Tay Choon Kwan | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Tan Siew Hoon | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Chan Kim Mun Eric | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Tan Keng Chiam | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Low Fook @ Low Fook Kiong | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Png Poh Soon (Fang Baoshun) | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Soh Chor Yin | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Ong Shujuan (Weng Shujuan) | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Chwee Shook Mun Valenie (Cui Shuwen) | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Yee Yeh Shiunn | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Teo Li Kim | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Mak Weng Tat | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Gan Thiam Hee Joseph | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Poh Kwee Eng | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Sim Hwee Yan | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Han Jee Kheng | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Teho Property Consultants Pte Ltd (formerly known as ECG Consultancy Pte Ltd) | Defendant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Won | |
| Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Knight Frank Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Edmund Tie & Company (SEA) Pte Ltd (formerly known as DTZ Debenham Tie Leung (SEA) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| CBRE Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Zeslene Mao | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- StreetSine Singapore Pte Ltd is an information technology company providing property information and transaction tools.
- The 1st Defendant is a national body representing professionals in the real estate and construction industry.
- The 2nd to 22nd Defendants are individual members or employees of the 1st Defendant.
- The 23rd Defendant is a property consultancy firm and a member of the 1st Defendant.
- The Plaintiff alleged that the 1st Defendant engaged in a conspiracy to injure the Plaintiff’s business.
- The Defendants applied for security for costs, arguing the Plaintiff would be unable to pay their costs if they won.
- The Plaintiff opposed the application, arguing it had sufficient liquidity to pay the costs.
5. Formal Citations
- StreetSine Singapore Pte Ltd v Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers and others, Suit No 1207 of 2016(Summons Nos 2968 and 2970 of 2018), [2019] SGHCR 01
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit commenced by the Plaintiff against the 1st Defendant. | |
| Loan agreements entered into between StreetSine Technology Group Pte Ltd and its shareholders. | |
| The 2nd to 27th Defendants were added as defendants to the action. | |
| The Defendants filed their respective applications for security for costs. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Security for Costs
- Outcome: The court dismissed the applications for security for costs.
- Category: Procedural
- Insolvency
- Outcome: The court considered the Plaintiff's solvency in determining whether there was reason to believe it would be unable to pay costs.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Security for Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy to Injure Business
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Information Technology
- Real Estate
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Frantonios Marine Services Pte Ltd and another v Kay Swee Tuan | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 224 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that once the first stage of an application for security for costs is satisfied, the Court would grant security for costs unless there are special circumstances. |
| Ho Wing On Christopher v ECRC Land Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 4 SLR(R) 817 | Singapore | Cited for the legislative and public policy behind section 388 of the Companies Act. |
| Pearson v Naydler | Not Available | Yes | [1977] 1 WLR 899 | England and Wales | Cited for the legislative and public policy behind section 388 of the Companies Act. |
| Jirehouse Capital (an unlimited company) and another v Beller and another | Not Available | Yes | [2009] 1 WLR 751 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the applicant is not required to prove on a balance of probabilities that the plaintiff will be unable to pay when ordered to do so. |
| IBB Internet Services Ltd and another v Motorola Ltd | Supreme Court | Yes | [2013] IESC 53 | Ireland | Cited for the principle that the court must predict a future uncertain event when deciding whether there is reason to believe that the plaintiff would be unable to pay. |
| Re Unisoft Group Ltd (No 2) | Not Available | Yes | [1993] BCLC 532 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the Court must have regard to conflicting evidence and reach a conclusion on the totality of the evidence. |
| Warren Mitchell Pty Ltd v Australian Maritime Officers’ Union and others | Not Available | Yes | (1993) 12 ACSR 1 | Australia | Cited for the principle that speculation as to insolvency or financial difficulties will be insufficient to ground the exercise of discretion. |
| Concorde Enterprises Ltd v Anthony Motors (Hutt) Ltd (No 2) | Not Available | Yes | [1977] 1 NZLR 516 | New Zealand | Cited for the principle that an applicant for security for costs is not required to provide anything very conclusive in the way of proof. |
| Elbow Holdings Pte Ltd v Marina Bay Sands Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 219 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where the solvency of the plaintiff was considered. |
| Ho Pak Kim Realty Co Pte Ltd v Revitech Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] SGHC 230 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where evidence that the plaintiff has failed to pay or delayed in making payment of a debt was considered. |
| South East Enterprises (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Hean Nerng Holdings Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 11 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where evidence that the plaintiff has failed to pay or delayed in making payment of a debt was considered. |
| Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v Puay Kim Seng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court would have regard to all the relevant circumstances to decide if it would be just to make the order. |
| Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Liu Cheng Chan and others | High Court | Yes | [2017] SGHC 15 | Singapore | Cited for the cash flow and balance sheet tests corresponded to the first and second limb of s 100(4) of the Bankruptcy Act. |
| Living the Link Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and others v Tan Lay Tin Tina and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 621 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the two tests are to be read disjunctively. |
| Chip Thye Enterprises Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Phay Gi Mo and others | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 434 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a surplus or deficiency of net assets is indicative but not necessarily determinative in establishing whether or not an entity is able to pay all its debts as and when they become due and payable. |
| Kon Yin Tong and another v Leow Boon Cher and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 228 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Court should look at all of the company’s debts and assets to determine a company’s liquidity. |
| Diamond Exchange of Singapore v Singapore Diamond Exchange Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHCR 10 | Singapore | Cited for summarising the difficulties of the company in Frantonios. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Security for costs
- Liquidity
- Balance sheet insolvency
- Cash flow insolvency
- Billings in advance
- Going concern
- Material uncertainty
- Financial statements
- Operating expenses
- Investment activities
15.2 Keywords
- Security for costs
- Companies Act
- Insolvency
- Civil Procedure
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 95 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Company Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Company Law
- Insolvency Law
- Costs