Lum Ooi Lin v Hyflux Ltd: Appeal on Security for Costs & Court's Discretion
Lum Ooi Lin appealed against the High Court's decision to accept a joint undertaking by Omni Bridgeway Limited and Omni Bridgeway (Singapore) Pte Ltd as security for costs in a suit against Hyflux Ltd, Hydrochem (S) Pte Ltd, Tuaspring Pte Ltd, Cosimo Borrelli, and Patrick Bance. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, affirming the court's wide discretion in determining the form of security for costs and upholding the principles for assessing the adequacy of the proposed security.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning the form of security for costs. The court upheld its wide discretion in accepting various forms of security.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cosimo Borrelli | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Upheld | Won | |
| Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) | Respondent, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Upheld | Won | |
| Hydrochem (S) Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) | Respondent, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Upheld | Won | |
| Tuaspring Pte Ltd (under receivership) | Respondent, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Upheld | Won | |
| Lum Ooi Lin | Appellant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Patrick Bance | Respondent, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Upheld | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Ms. Lum sought security for costs in Suit 267 for $90,000.
- Respondents agreed to furnish security but disagreed on the form.
- SAR Ng ordered security via costs undertaking, banker's guarantee, or payment into court.
- Respondents proposed an undertaking from Omni Bridgeway Limited and its Singapore subsidiary.
- The Judge accepted the Omni Undertaking as adequate security.
- The Appellate Division granted permission to appeal on questions of law regarding the form of security for costs.
5. Formal Citations
- Lum Ooi Lin v Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and others, Civil Appeal No 30 of 2023, [2023] SGCA 43
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 33 parties withdrew from proceedings in Suit 267 | |
| SAR Ng ordered respondents to furnish security for costs | |
| Stay of proceedings pending provision of security for costs | |
| Respondents appealed against SAR Ng’s order by way of RA 42 | |
| Appellate Division allowed OA 33 | |
| Ms Lum filed an appeal against the decision in RA 42 in AD/CA 64/2023 | |
| Hearing date | |
| AD 64 was transferred to the Court of Appeal | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Security for Costs
- Outcome: The court held that it has wide discretion to order security in any form it deems fit, and upheld the principles for assessing the adequacy of the proposed security.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Adequacy of form of security
- Court's discretion in ordering security
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGHC 113
- [2016] VSC 401
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for security for costs in a conventional mode
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Civil Appeals
11. Industries
- Finance
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The “Jeil Crystal” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1385 | Singapore | Cited regarding the limitation of issues being appealed when permission to appeal had been granted with respect to a single question. |
| The “Jeil Crystal” | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 292 | Singapore | Cited regarding the limitation of issues being appealed when permission to appeal had been granted with respect to a single question. |
| DIF III Global Co-Investment Fund, L.P. & Anor v BBLP LLC & Ors | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [2016] VSC 401 | Australia | Adopted as a matter of Singapore law the principles enunciated by Hargrave J in DIF III for the determination of the form of SFC. |
| Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and others v Lum Ooi Lin | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 113 | Singapore | The decision in RA 42 highlights and reinforces the wide discretion of the court as to the infinite forms of SFC that the court may accept and order. |
| Hong Kong Island Development Ltd v The World Food Fair Ltd & Anor | Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal | Yes | [2006] HKCU 449 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that the grant of leave on any single ground does not entitle the appellant to raise any other matter as a ground of appeal. |
| Blue Oil Energy Pty Limited v Tan | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] NSWCA 81 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the question for the court is not one of relative adequacy but of whether the form of SFC put forward is adequate to achieve its object as security. |
| Tulip Trading Limited (a Seychelles company) v Bitcoin Association for BSV (a Swiss verein) and others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2022] EWHC 141 (Ch) | England and Wales | Cited to illustrate that the court will not refuse to consider non-conventional modes of SFC just because conventional modes are still available to the claimant. |
| Infinity Distribution Ltd (in administration) v The Khan Partnership LLP | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2021] EWCA Civ 565 | England and Wales | Cited by the appellant in support of the position that conventional modes of security should be the starting point. |
| In the matter of Pioneer Energy Holdings Pty Limited | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2013] NSWSC 1366 | Australia | Cited by the appellant in support of the position that conventional modes of security should be the starting point. |
| Nylex Corporation Pty Ltd v Basell Australia Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [2009] VSC 97 | Australia | Cited by the appellant in support of the position that conventional modes of security should be the starting point. |
| Iddles & Anor v Fonterra Australia Pty Ltd & Ors | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | [2021] VSC 609 | Australia | Cited for express endorsement of the principles in DIF III. |
| Trailer Trash Franchise Systems Pty Ltd and Dale Cooney v GM Fascia & Gutter Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of Victoria, Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] VSCA 293 | Australia | Cited for express endorsement of the principles in DIF III. |
| Re Tiaro Coal Ltd (in liq) | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2018] NSWSC 746 | Australia | Cited for express endorsement of the principles in DIF III. |
| Rosengrens Ltd v Safe Deposit Centres Ltd | England and Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [1984] 1 WLR 1334 (EWCA) | England and Wales | Cited by the appellant in support of the position that DIF III should be treated with caution given the risk of satellite litigation arising from the form of security proposed. |
| Versloot Dredging BV v HDI Gerling Industrie Vesicherung AG | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2013] EWHC 658 (Comm) | England and Wales | Cited by the appellant in support of the position that DIF III should be treated with caution given the risk of satellite litigation arising from the form of security proposed. |
| AP (UK) Ltd v West Midlands Fire and Civil Defence Authority | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2001] EWCA Civ 1917 | England and Wales | Cited by the appellant in support of the position that DIF III should be treated with caution given the risk of satellite litigation arising from the form of security proposed. |
| Global Finance Group Pty Ltd (in liq) v Marsden Partners (a firm) | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | [2004] WASC 52 | Australia | Cited to suggest that undertakings by litigation funders should be subject to especial scrutiny. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| Rules of Court 2021 (2020 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Security for costs
- Omni Undertaking
- Conventional modes
- Litigation funder
- Mode Principles
- Appellate Division
- Costs Undertaking
15.2 Keywords
- security for costs
- appeal
- court discretion
- litigation funding
- Omni Bridgeway
- undertaking
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Procedure | 90 |
| Appellate Practice | 70 |
| Costs | 60 |
| Litigation Funding | 50 |
| Bankruptcy | 30 |
| Company Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Security for Costs
- Appeals