Engine Holdings v JTrust Asia: Extended Res Judicata & Abuse of Process
Engine Holdings Asia Pte Ltd applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the High Court judge in HC/RA 209/2021, which affirmed the decision of an Assistant Registrar not to strike out HC/S 1000/2020, a claim by JTrust Asia Pte Ltd against Engine Holdings and APF Holdings Co Ltd for unlawful means conspiracy. The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed Engine Holdings' application, finding no basis for appeal and addressing issues of extended res judicata and abuse of process.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Engine Holdings' application for leave to appeal the striking out of JTrust Asia's claim was dismissed, addressing res judicata and abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd | Respondent, Plaintiff | Corporation | Application granted | Won | |
| Engine Holdings Asia Pte Ltd | Applicant, Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| APF Holdings Co Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
| Chua Lee Ming | Judge of the High Court | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- JTrust Asia Pte Ltd filed HC/S 1212/2017 against eight defendants, alleging unlawful conspiracy to defraud it into investing in Group Lease Public Co Ltd.
- The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's dismissal, holding that the first and second defendants had deceived JTrust Asia.
- JTrust Asia filed HC/S 1000/2020 against Engine Holdings and APF Holdings, claiming they were part of the same unlawful means conspiracy.
- Engine Holdings filed the Striking Out Summons to strike out the 2nd Action, arguing it was an abuse of process.
- The Assistant Registrar dismissed the Striking Out Summons, and the Judge dismissed the appeal.
- Engine Holdings sought leave to appeal the Judge's decision.
5. Formal Citations
- Engine Holdings Asia Pte Ltd v JTrust Asia Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 42 of 2021, [2021] SGHC(A) 14
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd filed HC/S 1212/2017 against eight defendants. | |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd filed HC/S 1000/2020 against Engine Holdings Asia Pte Ltd and APF Holdings Co Ltd. | |
| Engine Holdings Asia Pte Ltd filed the Striking Out Summons to strike out the 2nd Action. | |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd commenced HC/OS 780/2021 against six of the eight defendants in the 1st Action. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that the application to strike out the claim on the ground of abuse of process was not justified.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Extended doctrine of res judicata
- Henderson abuse of process
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGCA(I) 2
- [2018] 3 SLR 117
- (1843) 67 ER 313
- [2008] 1 WLR 748
- Extended Doctrine of Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court considered whether the extended doctrine of res judicata applied to prevent JTrust Asia from bringing the second action against Engine Holdings.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- (1843) 67 ER 313
8. Remedies Sought
- Leave to appeal
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Unlawful Means Conspiracy
- Fraud
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1256 | Singapore | Cited for the background of the case and the Court of Appeal's decision regarding the first and second defendants' deception and the conspiracy to defraud. |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 29 | Singapore | Cited for the High Court's initial dismissal of the claim in the 1st Action, which was later overturned by the Court of Appeal. |
| Beyonics Asia Pacific Ltd and others v Goh Chan Peng and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA(I) 2 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claim could only be struck out on grounds of abuse of process if such abuse was “plain or obvious”. |
| Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v Nurdian Cuaca and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 117 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claim could only be struck out on grounds of abuse of process if such abuse was “plain or obvious”. |
| Henderson v Henderson | N/A | Yes | (1843) 67 ER 313 | N/A | Cited for the extended doctrine of res judicata. |
| Aldi Stores Ltd v WSP Group plc and others | N/A | Yes | [2008] 1 WLR 748 | England | Cited for guidelines on when a claimant should raise a potential claim with the court hearing existing proceedings. |
| IW v IX | N/A | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 135 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prima facie error must be one of law and not of fact. |
| Hwa Aik Engineering Pte Ltd v Munshi Mohammad Faiz and another | N/A | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1288 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the prima facie error must be one of law and not of fact. |
| Angeli Luki Kotonou v National Westminster Bank plc | N/A | Yes | [2017] 1 All ER (Comm) 350 | England | Cited for the 'intense focus approach' in determining whether a Henderson abuse of process is engaged. |
| 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 'plain and obvious' test in striking out applications. |
| The “Osprey” | N/A | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 1099 | Singapore | Cited for the 'plain and obvious' test in striking out applications. |
| Laing v Taylor Walton (a firm) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] EWCA Civ 1146 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the approach to Henderson abuse of process claims. |
| Stuart v Goldberg Linde (a firm) and others | N/A | Yes | [2008] 1 WLR 823 | England | Cited for the principle that parties should put their cards on the table to avoid a second action being held to be an abuse of process. |
| Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v Nurdian Cuaca and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] SGHCR 10 | Singapore | Cited as a decision by an assistant registrar that doubted the Aldi principle. |
| Gladman Commercial Properties v Fisher Hargreaves Proctor and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] EWCA Civ 1466 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the consequences of failing to follow guidelines on disclosing potential claims. |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 159 | Singapore | Cited in respect of an MI (Mareva Injunction) at [62]. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 17 | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Res judicata
- Abuse of process
- Striking out
- Unlawful means conspiracy
- Leave to appeal
- Joint tortfeasors
- Investment agreement
15.2 Keywords
- res judicata
- abuse of process
- striking out
- civil procedure
- singapore
- court of appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Extended doctrine of res judicata | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Arbitration | 25 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
| Company Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Abuse of Process
- Res Judicata