Larpin v Nargolwala: Security for Costs Application in Villa Sale Dispute

Christian Alfred Larpin and Quo Vadis Investments Limited, the Plaintiffs, sued Kaikhushru Shiavax Nargolwala and Aparna Nargolwala, the Defendants, in the Singapore International Commercial Court, seeking rescission of a villa sale and damages. The Defendants applied for security for costs. Roger Giles IJ dismissed the application, considering the Plaintiffs' means and the ease of enforcing a judgment in Hong Kong. The judgment was delivered on 24 November 2020.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Singapore International Commercial Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiffs seek rescission of a villa sale. Defendants' application for security for costs was dismissed, considering plaintiffs' means and enforcement.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Christian Alfred LarpinPlaintiffIndividualApplication dismissedWon
Quo Vadis Investments LimitedPlaintiffCorporationApplication dismissedWon
Kaikhushru Shiavax NargolwalaDefendantIndividualApplication grantedLost
Aparna NargolwalaDefendantIndividualApplication grantedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Roger GilesInternational JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Harjean KaurAdvocatus Law LLP
Christopher Anand DanielAdvocatus Law LLP
Ramesh Kumar s/o RamasamyAllen & Gledhill LLP
Alyssa Tan Shu-NingAllen & Gledhill LLP
Amanda Lim Min LiAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs claim rescission of a villa sale and return of the US$7.9m purchase price.
  2. Defendants applied for security for costs of S$350,000.
  3. Mr. Larpin is a Swiss citizen residing in Hong Kong; Quo Vadis is a Hong Kong company.
  4. Plaintiffs allege false representations regarding a prior offer to purchase the villa.
  5. Defendants deny making false representations.
  6. Mr. Lew brought separate legal action claiming an oral agreement to purchase the villa.
  7. Mr. Larpin is a wealthy man but does not have assets in Singapore.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Larpin, Christian Alfred and another v Kaikhushru Shiavax Nargolwala and another, Suit No 3 of 2020 (Summons No 59 of 2020), [2020] SGHC(I) 24

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr Larpin attended a viewing of the Villa.
Reservation Agreement between Quo Vadis and the Defendants was executed.
Share Purchase Agreement between Quo Vadis and the Defendants was executed.
Telephone conversation between Mr Larpin and the First Defendant.
Completion of the Share Purchase Agreement took place.
Mr Lew brought legal action.
Trial of Mr Lew’s proceedings.
Trial of Mr Lew’s proceedings.
Judgment of Simon Thorley IJ was published in Lew, Solomon v Kaikhushru Shiavax Nargolwala and others.
Case Management Conference.
Hearing date.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Security for Costs
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for security for costs.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Foreign plaintiff
      • Plaintiff's means
      • Enforcement of costs judgment
  2. Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court did not make a determination on the merits of the misrepresentation claim.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Rescission of the sale
  2. Return of the purchase price of US$7.9m
  3. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Rescission of sale
  • Breach of contract
  • Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2018] 5 SLR 105SingaporeCited for the principle that the ground that the plaintiff is ordinarily resident out of the jurisdiction is notionally added to the conditions for ordering security for costs.
Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star LtdCourt of AppealYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 427SingaporeCited for the principle that it is necessary to consider all the circumstances to determine whether it is just that security be ordered, without a presumption in favor of, or against, an order.
Lew, Solomon v Kaikhushru Shiavax Nargolwala and othersSingapore International Commercial CourtYes[2020] 3 SLR 61SingaporeCited for the findings of Simon Thorley IJ regarding the alleged oral agreement for the sale of the Villa.
SK Lateral Rubber & Plastic Technologies (Suzhou) Co Ltd v Lateral Solutions Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2020] 4 SLR 72SingaporeCited for the summation on the relative strengths of the parties’ cases in security for costs applications.
Pacific Integrated Logistics Pte Ltd v Gorman Vernel International Freight LtdHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 1017SingaporeCited regarding the purpose behind O 23 r (1)(a) and reducing the time and expense involved in enforcing orders.
Ooi Ching Ling Shirley v Just Gems IncCourt of AppealYes[2002] 2 SLR(R) 738SingaporeCited for the rationale for granting security against a foreign plaintiff is the delay or expense that will arise in enforcing the costs order abroad.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act (Cap 265, 2001 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security for costs
  • Foreign plaintiff
  • Villa
  • Share Purchase Agreement
  • Misrepresentation
  • Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act
  • Querencia Ltd
  • Andara Resort

15.2 Keywords

  • Security for costs
  • Foreign plaintiff
  • Villa sale
  • Misrepresentation
  • Singapore International Commercial Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Security for Costs90
Costs80
Civil Practice75
Civil Procedure75
Misrepresentation50
Contract Law30
Litigation25
Jurisdiction20

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Costs
  • Security for Costs
  • International Law