Lee Bee Eng v Cheng William: Joinder and Substitution of Parties in Construction Dispute

In Lee Bee Eng (formerly trading as AFCO East Development) v Cheng William, the High Court of Singapore addressed Registrar's Appeal Nos 82 and 363 of 2019, concerning Suit No 437 of 2017. The central issue was whether the assistant registrar erred in adding Ms. Lee Bee Eng, the Sole Proprietor, as a plaintiff and striking out AFCO East Development Pte Ltd's claims. The court allowed the appeal in part, ordering the substitution of AFCO with the Sole Proprietorship as the plaintiff, finding that the Sole Proprietorship was the proper party to the contract. The court dismissed the appeal against the decision not to grant security for costs. The case involves a breach of contract claim related to construction work.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Registrar's Appeal No 82 of 2019 dismissed; Registrar's Appeal No 363 of 2019 allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed the substitution of parties in a construction dispute, allowing the Sole Proprietorship to replace AFCO as plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lee Bee Eng (formerly trading as AFCO East Development)Plaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartialJohn Lim Kwang Meng, Sia Dewei, Alvin, Ng Kai Ling
Cheng WilliamDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLostGoh Wei Wei, Ling Jia Yu

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
John Lim Kwang MengLIMN Law Corporation
Sia Dewei, AlvinLIMN Law Corporation
Ng Kai LingLIMN Law Corporation
Goh Wei WeiWongPartnership LLP
Ling Jia YuWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Ms. Lee is a director of AFCO East Development Pte Ltd.
  2. AFCO was the original plaintiff in Suit 437/2017.
  3. The defendant, Mr. William Cheng, contracted with the Sole Proprietorship for construction work.
  4. Disputes arose regarding progress payments and variation works.
  5. AFCO commenced Suit 437/2017 against the defendant claiming outstanding payments.
  6. The defendant argued that AFCO had no standing to bring the suit.
  7. The AR ordered the Sole Proprietor to be added as a plaintiff and AFCO's claims to be struck out.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lee Bee Eng (formerly trading as AFCO East Development) v Cheng William, Suit No 437 of 2017 (Registrar’s Appeal Nos 82 and 363 of 2019), [2020] SGHC 207

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Sole Proprietorship registered
Work order issued by Sole Proprietorship
Letter of Award issued to Sole Proprietorship
AFCO incorporated and Sole Proprietorship terminated
Suit 437/2017 commenced
Defence filed
Summons No 4037 of 2018 filed
Summons No 4360 of 2018 filed
AR made orders to add Sole Proprietor and strike out AFCO
RA 82/2019 commenced
Appeal against security for costs dismissed
RA 363/2019 filed
AR's decision set aside and substitution ordered
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Joinder of Parties
    • Outcome: The court found that the AR's power of joinder was not extinguished and ordered a substitution of parties.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Substitution of Parties
    • Outcome: The court allowed the substitution of AFCO with the Sole Proprietorship as the plaintiff.
    • Category: Procedural
  3. Limitation Act
    • Outcome: The court found that the causes of action for both the Progress Payments and the Variation Payments accrued well within the limitation period.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Outstanding Progress Payments
  2. Payment for Variation Works

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Dispute

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala v Compania De Navegación Palomar, SA and others and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 894SingaporeCited regarding the power to order joinders only exists when there remains something to be done in the matter.
Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck and anotherN/AYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 869SingaporeCited regarding a court should not exercise its power of joinder where the pleaded case is plainly unsustainable.
Lim Yong Swan v Lim Jee TeeN/AYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 940SingaporeCited regarding the two limbs to the provision of amending the name of a party.
Thu Aung Zaw v Ku Swee Boon (trading as Norb Creative Studio)N/AYes[2018] 4 SLR 1260SingaporeCited regarding a party substitution was effected under similar circumstances.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte Ltd and others (King Wan Construction Pte Ltd and others, third parties)High CourtYes[2016] SGHC 28SingaporeCited regarding the cause of action accrued on the date of the alleged breach.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
O 15 r 4 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
O 15 r 6 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
O 23 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
O 20 r 5(3) of the Rules of CourtSingapore
s 4(8) of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
s 6(1) of the Limitation ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Sole Proprietorship
  • AFCO East Development Pte Ltd
  • Progress Payments
  • Variation Payments
  • Letter of Award
  • Form of Quotation
  • Joinder
  • Substitution

15.2 Keywords

  • joinder
  • substitution
  • construction
  • contract
  • sole proprietorship
  • limitation

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Construction Dispute
  • Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Civil Procedure
  • Construction Law
  • Contract Law