Cheung Phei Chiet v Cheong Yoke Ling: Application for Permanent Stay of Private Prosecution for Mischief
Cheung Phei Chiet and Parameshwara s/o Krishnasamy, volunteer council members of MCST Plan No 508, applied for a permanent stay of private prosecution commenced by Cheong Yoke Ling in the High Court of Singapore. The private prosecution and a related civil action concerned the MCST’s removal of kitchen exhaust ducts from a unit owned by Cheong Yoke Ling's late father. Chan Seng Onn J dismissed the application, finding that there were triable issues and that the private prosecution was not an abuse of process.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for a permanent stay of criminal proceedings. The court dismissed the application, finding triable issues regarding the removal of kitchen exhaust ducts.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheung Phei Chiet | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Parameshwara s/o Krishnasamy | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Cheong Yoke Ling | Respondent | Individual | Application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The applicants are volunteer council members of MCST Plan No 508.
- The respondent is the daughter of the late Mr Cheong Kim Koek and an executor of his estate.
- The late Mr Cheong owned a unit in the Development until his death.
- The respondent commenced private prosecution against the applicants for mischief.
- The private prosecution concerned the MCST’s removal of kitchen exhaust ducts from the exterior of the Unit.
- The MCST removed the Ducts on 23 February 2019.
- The respondent claims the Ducts were installed with approval, while the applicants dispute this.
5. Formal Citations
- Cheung Phei Chiet and another v Cheong Yoke Ling, Originating Summons No 682 of 2020, [2021] SGHC 15
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Grant of Probate for the Estate was issued | |
| Respondent received notice of EOGM | |
| EOGM held to pass resolutions to authorise legal proceedings against the respondent | |
| MCST sent letter to respondent to remove the Ducts | |
| Respondent's solicitors informed MCST that approval had been obtained for the Ducts | |
| MCST engaged 98 Construction to remove the Ducts | |
| Respondent filed MAG-900150-2020 and MAG-900151-2020 against the applicants for mischief | |
| Respondent's solicitors wrote to AGC | |
| AGC responded to respondent's solicitors | |
| Respondent and her husband instructed their solicitors to file DC/OSS 3/2020 against the MCST and the applicants | |
| Magistrate issued private summonses against the applicants and 98 Construction | |
| Private summons served on the first applicant | |
| Private summons served on the second applicant | |
| Applicants invited the respondent to withdraw the private summonses | |
| Respondent rejected the invitation to withdraw the private summonses | |
| Applicants filed the present Originating Summons | |
| Applicants again invited the respondent to withdraw the private summonses | |
| Respondent informed the State Courts that she would not be withdrawing the private summonses | |
| Application dismissed | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that the private prosecution was not an abuse of process because there were triable issues and the complainant had sufficient cause to lodge the complaint.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Lack of foundation for private prosecution
- Malice or improper purpose
- Related Cases:
- [2020] SGHC 186
- [2003] 4 SLR(R) 553
- [2004] 2 SLR(R) 408
- Williams v Spautz (1991–1992) 174 CLR 509
- Locus Standi
- Outcome: The court held that the respondent had locus standi to make a complaint to the Magistrate pursuant to s 151(1) of the CPC.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Permanent stay of criminal proceedings
9. Cause of Actions
- Mischief
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Private Prosecution
- Abuse of Process
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Soh Chee Wen and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 186 | Singapore | Cited for the law on the court’s inherent power to stay criminal proceedings for abuse of process. |
| Sum Lye Heng (also known as Lim Jessie) v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2285 and others | High Court | Yes | [2003] 4 SLR(R) 553 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the High Court possesses the inherent jurisdiction to grant a permanent stay of criminal proceedings commenced by way of private summonses if the case lacks foundation. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2285 and others v Sum Lye Heng (alias Lim Jessie) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 408 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a stay order should only be made if there is very clear evidence of abuse and that the complainant had no cause whatsoever to lodge the complaint. |
| Williams v Spautz | N/A | Yes | Williams v Spautz (1991–1992) 174 CLR 509 | N/A | Cited regarding the relevance of malice in abuse of process claims, noting that malice alone is insufficient to constitute an abuse of process if there is a valid basis for the action. |
| People’s Park Chinatown Development Pte Ltd v Schindler Lifts (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 236 | Singapore | Cited regarding the proposition that title to any fixtures reverts to the freeholder of the property, but distinguished regarding the exception of tenant's fixtures. |
| Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 234 | Singapore | Cited for the restatement of the rule on tenant’s fixtures. |
| BP Refinery Singapore Pte Ltd v Amazon Group Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 4 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that tenant’s trade fixtures have long occupied a special place in the law of fixtures. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Section 425 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Sections 151 and 153 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Private prosecution
- Abuse of process
- Permanent stay
- Mischief
- Locus standi
- Kitchen exhaust ducts
- MCST
- Common property
- Tenant's fixtures
15.2 Keywords
- Private prosecution
- Abuse of process
- Permanent stay
- Mischief
- Strata title
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Private Prosecution | 60 |
| Strata Management | 30 |
| Criminal Law | 25 |
| Property Law | 20 |
| Administrative Law | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Criminal Law
- Strata Management
- Abuse of Process