CKR Contract Services v Asplenium Land: Res Judicata & Striking Out in Construction Dispute

In CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Asplenium Land Pte Ltd, the first defendant, to strike out CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd's, the plaintiff, action in Suit 1274 of 2015, concerning claims of lawful and unlawful means conspiracy and intimidation arising from a construction project. Ang Cheng Hock J struck out the conspiracy claims based on res judicata but allowed the intimidation claim related to the first 'ang pow' to proceed to trial. The court found that the conspiracy claims had already been dealt with in prior arbitration proceedings, while the intimidation claim required further factual assessment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claims in conspiracy against the first defendant are struck out in their totality. The plaintiff's claims for intimidation, save as relate to the procurement of the first “ang pow” of S$15,000, are also struck out.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Striking out application based on res judicata in a construction dispute. The court struck out conspiracy claims but allowed intimidation claim related to 'ang pow'.

1.7 Decision Date

28 June 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Claims in conspiracy struck out, Claims for intimidation partially struck out	Lost, Partial	Lee Sien Liang Joseph, Qabir Singh Sandhu, Yap Pei Yin
Asplenium Land Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Claims in conspiracy struck out, Claims for intimidation partially struck out	Won, Partial	Chuah Chee Kian Christopher, Kua Lay Theng, Rachael Chong Rae-Hua
Sia Wee Long	Defendant	Individual	Action discontinued	Withdrawn
SCDA Architects Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Action discontinued	Withdrawn
Chan Soo Khian	Defendant	Individual	Action discontinued	Withdrawn
Kan Fook Seng	Defendant	Individual	Action discontinued	Withdrawn
Rich-Link Construction Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Unknown	Other
Rider Levett Bucknall LLP	Defendant	Limited Liability Partnership	Unknown	Other
RLB Consultancy Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Unknown	Other
Lam Chye Shing	Defendant	Individual	Unknown	Other

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Ang Cheng Hock	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lee Sien Liang Joseph	LVM Law Chambers LLC
Qabir Singh Sandhu	LVM Law Chambers LLC
Yap Pei Yin	LVM Law Chambers LLC
Chuah Chee Kian Christopher	WongPartnership LLP
Kua Lay Theng	WongPartnership LLP
Rachael Chong Rae-Hua	WongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff was appointed as the main contractor for the Seletar Park Residences project on 15 January 2013.
The plaintiff's appointment as main contractor was terminated on 24 October 2014.
The first defendant, Asplenium Land Pte Ltd, was the developer for the Project.
The first defendant made a call on the performance bond for the full sum after termination.
The plaintiff commenced arbitral proceedings against the first defendant on 10 November 2014.
The plaintiff commenced Suit 1274 against nine defendants, alleging conspiracy and intimidation.
The second defendant allegedly made unlawful demands for monetary gratification from the plaintiff.

5. Formal Citations

CKR Contract Services Pte Ltd v Asplenium Land Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 1274 of 2015 (Summons No 4732 of 2019), [2020] SGHC 133

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-01-15	Plaintiff and first defendant entered into a contract.
2014-10-24	Plaintiff was terminated as main contractor of the Project by the first defendant.
2014-11-04	First defendant made a call on the performance bond for the full sum.
2014-11-10	Plaintiff commenced arbitral proceedings against the first defendant.
2015-01-14	Plaintiff initiated separate proceedings in HC/S 37/2015 against the seventh, eighth, and ninth defendants.
2015-12-15	Plaintiff commenced Suit 1274 against the nine defendants.
2017-09-28	Plaintiff filed an appeal in CA 179/2017.
2018-04-06	Plaintiff commenced HC/S 349/2018 against the third and fourth defendants.
2020-03-09	Second defendant’s striking out application was withdrawn.
2020-03-16	Plaintiff discontinued its action against the second defendant.
2020-04-01	Plaintiff discontinued its action against the third to fifth defendants.
2020-06-29	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court struck out the conspiracy claims based on the doctrine of res judicata.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Cause of action estoppel
  - Issue estoppel
  - Extended doctrine of res judicata
- Related Cases:
  - [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
  - [1991] 1 SLR(R) 844
  - [2012] 4 SLR 546
  - [2012] 1 SLR 457
  - [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1099
  - [2016] 5 SLR 887
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453
  - [2015] SGHC 175
  - [2017] SGHC 289
  - [2005] 3 SLR(R) 157
  - [1843] 3 Hare 999
  - [2017] 2 SLR 760
  - [2018] 3 SLR 117
  - [2016] 1 SLR 966
  - [2016] 1 SLR 137
  - [2015] SGHC 229
  - [2013] UKSC 46
  - [2009] 1 SLR(R) 875
  - [2018] SGHC 158
  - [2017] 2 SLR 1074
  - [2000] 1 SLR(R) 980
  - [2015] 5 SLR 1104
Striking Out
- Outcome: The court granted the striking out application in part, striking out the conspiracy claims and some of the intimidation claims.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
  - [1991] 1 SLR(R) 844
  - [2012] 4 SLR 546
  - [2012] 1 SLR 457
  - [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1099
  - [2016] 5 SLR 887
Intimidation
- Outcome: The court allowed the intimidation claim related to the first 'ang pow' to proceed to trial.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2018] SGHC 158
  - [2017] 2 SLR 1074
Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court struck out the conspiracy claims.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Loss of profits
Damages for conduct of replacement tender
Costs and expenses incurred in complying with ADs and Notices
Costs and expenses related to termination and performance bond
Interest costs related to the performance bond

9. Cause of Actions

Lawful Means Conspiracy
Unlawful Means Conspiracy
Intimidation

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Construction Litigation
Arbitration

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others	N/A	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the power of striking out should only be invoked in 'plain and obvious' cases.
Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1991] 1 SLR(R) 844	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a litigant has the right to institute a bona fide claim unless the case is wholly and clearly unarguable.
The “Bunga Melati 5”	N/A	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 546	Singapore	Cited for the principle that each limb of O 18 r 19(1) of the ROC provides a separate and distinct basis for the Court’s exercise of its power to strike out pleadings.
Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 457	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the power of the court to strike out a claim at the interlocutory stage under limb (a) of O 18 r 19(1) of the ROC can only be exercised when it is patently clear that there is no reasonable cause of action on the face of the pleadings.
The “Osprey”	N/A	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 1099	Singapore	Cited for the definition of 'frivolous and vexatious' actions.
Tong Seak Kan and another v Jaya Sudhir a/l Jayaram	N/A	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 887	Singapore	Cited regarding the interpretation of 'prejudice, embarrass or delay the fair trial of the action'.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others	N/A	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited for outlining the doctrine of res judicata, encompassing cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, and the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 175	Singapore	Cited for setting out the requirements for cause of action estoppel and issue estoppel.
BNX v BOE and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 289	Singapore	Cited for the application of issue estoppel to strike out claims for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Strata Title Plan No 301	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 157	Singapore	Cited for setting out the requirements for issue estoppel.
Henderson v Henderson	N/A	Yes	[1843] 3 Hare 999	England	Cited as the origin of the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 760	Singapore	Cited for observations on the rule in Henderson and the courts' concern with preventing multiplicity of litigation.
Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v Nurdian Cuaca and others	N/A	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 117	Singapore	Cited for the policy reasons underlying the extended doctrine of res judicata, including finality of litigation and avoiding multiplicity of proceedings.
AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 966	Singapore	Cited for the principle that arbitration awards can be final and conclusive determinations for the purposes of invoking res judicata.
Cost Engineers (SEA) Pte Ltd and another v Chan Siew Lun	N/A	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 137	Singapore	Cited for the approach to identity of parties in the context of issue estoppel.
Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for the estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and another v Quek Hung Heong and others	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 229	Singapore	Cited for the view that identity of parties is not viewed narrowly.
Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited v Zodiac Seats UK Limited (formerly known as Contour Aerospace Limited)	United Kingdom Supreme Court	Yes	[2013] UKSC 46	United Kingdom	Cited for reaffirming the prominence of the rule in Henderson.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 875	Singapore	Cited for the public interest in finality of judicial decisions and protection from vexatious suits.
Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie v National University of Singapore	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 158	Singapore	Cited for the elements of the tort of intimidation.
Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 1074	Singapore	Cited for the definition of vicarious liability as a form of secondary liability.
Pacific Internet Ltd v Catcha.com Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 980	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if an action contains a point of law which requires serious argument, it is not appropriate to strike it out.
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	N/A	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 1104	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the extended doctrine of res judicata extends beyond cause of action and issue estoppel to cases where a particular point was not raised in the earlier proceedings even though it could and should have been.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Res judicata
Striking out
Conspiracy
Intimidation
Arbitration
Performance bond
Architect's directions
Termination certificate
Ang pow
Replacement tender
Construction contract

15.2 Keywords

construction
res judicata
striking out
conspiracy
intimidation
arbitration
singapore

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Civil Procedure
Res Judicata
Tort Law

17. Areas of Law

Civil Procedure
Striking out
Res Judicata
Issue estoppel
Cause of action estoppel
Extended doctrine of res judicata
Tort Law
Conspiracy
Intimidation
Construction Law