Mohamed Shiyam v Tuff Offshore Engineering: Amendment, Joinder, Corporate Veil, Conspiracy

In Mohamed Shiyam v Tuff Offshore Engineering Services Pte Ltd, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed the plaintiff's application to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim to add three defendants and plead new claims against them, including lifting the corporate veil and conspiracy. The court, presided over by Roger Giles IJ, dismissed the application save for a minor amendment related to payment. The court's decision was delivered on July 30, 2021, following a hearing on June 24, 2021. The plaintiff's claims were largely dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

SINGAPORE INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL COURT

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed in part; leave granted to amend paragraph 14 of the Statement of Claim.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiff's application to amend the claim by adding defendants and pleading new claims was largely dismissed, except for a minor payment amendment.

1.7 Decision Date

29 July 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Mohamed Shiyam	Plaintiff	Individual	Application dismissed in part	Partial	Goh Wei Wei of WongPartnership LLP Ling Jia Yu of WongPartnership LLP Charlotte Tang of WongPartnership LLP
Tuff Offshore Engineering Services Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Application granted in part	Partial	Lim Shu Yi of Parwani Law LLC Vijai Parwani of Parwani Law LLC
Ganesh Paulraj	Other	Individual	Application dismissed	Dismissed	Lim Shu Yi of Parwani Law LLC Vijai Parwani of Parwani Law LLC
Natarajan Paulraj	Other	Individual	Application dismissed	Dismissed	Lim Shu Yi of Parwani Law LLC Vijai Parwani of Parwani Law LLC
Mahalakshmi d/o Mahalingham	Other	Individual	Application dismissed	Dismissed	Lim Shu Yi of Parwani Law LLC Vijai Parwani of Parwani Law LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Roger Giles	International Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Goh Wei Wei	WongPartnership LLP
Ling Jia Yu	WongPartnership LLP
Charlotte Tang	WongPartnership LLP
Lim Shu Yi	Parwani Law LLC
Vijai Parwani	Parwani Law LLC

4. Facts

The plaintiff, Mohamed Shiyam, provided consultancy services on infrastructure projects.
The defendant, Tuff Offshore Engineering Services Pte Ltd, was engaged in the design and construction of major infrastructure projects.
In March 2017, Gryphon was awarded a contract to construct and develop five domestic airports in the Maldives.
The plaintiff assisted Gryphon in obtaining the contract.
Gryphon introduced the Five Airport Project and the plaintiff to the defendant.
The plaintiff suggested the defendant propose the construction and development of nine domestic airports in the Maldives.
The plaintiff and the defendant continued to work together with a view to other projects in the Maldives.

5. Formal Citations

Mohamed Shiyam v Tuff Offshore Engineering Services Pte Ltd, Suit No 5 of 2021, [2021] SGHC(I) 8

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-03-01	Government of the Republic of Maldives awarded a contract to Gryphon for the Five Airport Project.
2017-07-01	Gryphon introduced the Five Airport Project and the plaintiff to the defendant.
2017-09-01	Proposal by Regional Airports to construct and develop the Maafaru Airport Project.
2017-12-14	Plaintiff, Saamee, Mr Ganesh and Mr Paul met in Singapore to discuss and finalise the bid.
2017-12-16	Plaintiff, Mr Ganesh and Mr Paul came to an agreement concerning the plaintiff’s remuneration, and a document was signed recording their agreement.
2017-12-17	Further discussion between the plaintiff and the defendant about the plaintiff’s remuneration.
2017-12-17	Bid submitted for the Maafaru Airport Project.
2017-12-01	Regional Airports awarded the defendant a contract for the Maafaru Airport Project.
2019-12-13	Plaintiff commenced proceedings in the High Court.
2020-01-15	Defence filed.
2020-01-30	Reply filed.
2020-03-12	Plaintiff applied for summary judgment and for a number of paragraphs of the Defence to be struck out.
2020-07-27	Hearing on the application for summary judgement.
2020-07-30	Assistant Registrar Paul Chan dismissed the application for summary judgment.
2020-08-13	Plaintiff appealed against the decision of the Assistant Registrar.
2020-10-09	Appeal heard in the High Court.
2020-10-26	Hoo Sheau Peng J upheld the Assistant Registrar’s decision.
2020-11-27	Amended Defence filed.
2020-12-09	Defendant applied for security for costs up to the first day of trial.
2021-01-28	AR Chan ordered the plaintiff to furnish security for costs of S$70,000.
2021-03-05	Security provided by way of solicitor’s undertaking.
2021-03-11	Deputy Registrar Phang Hsiao Chung ordered that the proceedings be transferred from the High Court to the Singapore International Commercial Court.
2021-04-23	Case Management Conference fixed.
2021-06-24	Hearing date appointed.
2021-07-30	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: Leave granted to amend paragraph 14 of the Statement of Claim.
- Category: Procedural
Joinder of Parties
- Outcome: Application to join additional defendants dismissed.
- Category: Procedural
Lifting the Corporate Veil
- Outcome: Application to lift the corporate veil dismissed.
- Category: Substantive
Conspiracy
- Outcome: Application to bring conspiracy claims dismissed.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2016] 4 SLR 351	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the requirements of both O 20 r 5 and O 15 rr 4 and 6 of the Rules of Court must be fulfilled when amending pleadings and joining parties.
Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 52	Singapore	Cited for the guiding principle that amendments to pleadings ought to be allowed if they would enable the real questions and/or issues in controversy between the parties to be determined.
Oh Bernard v Six Capital Investments Ltd (in liquidation) and others	High Court	Yes	[2020] SGHC 42	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if the requirements of O 15 r 4(1) are satisfied, the plaintiff is entitled to join the multiple defendants.
Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala v Compania De Navigacion Palomar, SA and others and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 894	Singapore	Cited for explaining the non-discretionary and discretionary elements of O 15 r 6(2) regarding joinder of parties.
Lim Yong Swan v Lim Jee Tee and another	High Court	Yes	[1992] 3 SLR 940	Singapore	Cited for the principle that whether to allow amendment does not involve an examination of the merits of the applicant’s case, beyond whether it is bound to fail or (perhaps) bound to succeed.
Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew	High Court	Yes	[1990] 1 SLR(R) 337	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the principles to be applied in the context of O 20 r 5 are similar to those for striking out pleadings under O 18 r 19 of the ROC.
Wright Norman and another v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR(R) 640	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the principles to be applied in the context of O 20 r 5 are similar to those for striking out pleadings under O 18 r 19 of the ROC.
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649	Singapore	Cited for the definition of 'reasonable cause of action' as a cause of action which has some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleading are considered.
Tan Yow Kon v Tan Swat Ping	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR(R) 881	Singapore	Cited for the recognition that O 15 r 6 stands in relation to parties as O 20 stands in relation to the amendment of pleadings.
Lee Bee Eng v Cheng William	High Court	Yes	[2021] 3 SLR 968	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court declined to find that the case was “so hopeless that it [failed] to withstand basic scrutiny”.
Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck and another	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 869	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Court will not allow joinder where the pleaded case is doomed or plainly unsustainable.
Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others	United Kingdom Supreme Court	Yes	[2013] 2 AC 415	United Kingdom	Cited as a case where the United Kingdom Supreme Court reconsidered piercing the corporate veil in a more unified manner.
Simgood Pte Ltd v MLC Shipbuilding Sdn Bhd and others	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 1129	Singapore	Cited as a case that referred to Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others.
Sun Electric Pte Ltd v Menrva Solutions Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 264	Singapore	Cited as a case that referred to Prest v Petrodel Resources Ltd and others.
Sun Electric Pte Ltd and another v Menrva Solutions Pte Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] SGCA 51	Singapore	Cited as a case where the Court of Appeal found that it was not necessary to decide its application in Singapore.
Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and others	High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHC 125	Singapore	Cited for the two justifications for lifting the corporate veil: where the evidence showed that the company was in fact not a separate entity, and secondly, where the corporate form had been abused to further an improper purpose.
Goh Chan Peng and others v Beyonics Technology Ltd and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 592	Singapore	Cited for the principle that piercing the corporate veil is justified by abuse of the corporate form or if it is necessary for the veil to be lifted to give effect to a legislative provision.
Win Line (UK) Ltd v Masterpart (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 24	Singapore	Cited for the recognition of the 'sham or façade' ground for lifting the corporate veil.
Snook v London & West Riding Investments Ltd	Queen's Bench	Yes	[1967] 2 QB 786	England and Wales	Cited for the meaning given to 'sham' in the context of lifting the corporate veil.
Singapore Tourism Board v Children’s Media Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 981	Singapore	Cited for the recognition of the 'sham or façade' ground for lifting the corporate veil.
Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 308	Singapore	Cited for the recognition of the 'sham or façade' ground for lifting the corporate veil.
The Rialto; Yukong Line Ltd of Korea v Rendsburg Investments Corporation (No 2)	High Court	Yes	[1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 322	England and Wales	Cited for the reasoning of Toulson J in adopting the meaning given to sham in Snook v London & West Riding Investments Ltd.
Children’s Media Ltd and others v Singapore Tourism Board	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR(R) 524	Singapore	Cited as the appeal from Singapore Tourism Board v Children’s Media Ltd and others, upholding the result.
NEC Asia Pte Ltd (now known as NEC Asia Pacific Pte Ltd) v Picket & Rail Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 565	Singapore	Cited for the principle that evidence of sole shareholding and control of the company without more would not move the court to intervene.
New Line Productions, Inc and another v Aglow Video Pte Ltd and others and other suits	High Court	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR(R) 660	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where directors order an act by the company which amounts to a tort by the company, they may be liable as joint tortfeasors on the basis that they have ‘procured or directed’ the wrong to be done.
TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi	High Court	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR 543	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where directors order an act by the company which amounts to a tort by the company, they may be liable as joint tortfeasors on the basis that they have ‘procured or directed’ the wrong to be done.
Beckkett Pte Ltd v Deutsche Bank AG and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 452	Singapore	Cited for the elements of the cause of action for lawful means conspiracy.
Beyonics Technology Ltd and another v Goh Chan Peng and others	High Court	Yes	[2016] SGHC 120	Singapore	Cited for the elements of the cause of action for unlawful means conspiracy.
Steamship Mutual Underwriting Association Ltd v Trollope & Colls (City) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1986] 33 BLR 77	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that there was abuse because the plaintiff sought to bring the claims against the proposed defendants without knowing any facts to support them and with a view to using the court’s processes to find something.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, Rev Ed 2006)	Singapore
Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 (No. 40 of 2018)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Five Airport Project
Nine Airports Project
Maafaru Airport Project
Corporate Veil
Conspiracy
Joinder
Amendment

15.2 Keywords

Amendment
Joinder
Corporate Veil
Conspiracy
Singapore International Commercial Court
Infrastructure Projects

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Procedure	90
Lifting corporate veil	80
Pleadings	70
Conspiracy	70
Amendment	60
Joinder	50
Non-joinder	40
Company Law	40
Corporate Law	40
Torts	30
Commercial Disputes	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Company Law
Tort Law