Lim Oon Kuin v Rajah & Tann: Striking Out & Amendments in Hin Leong & Ocean Tankers Cases

The General Division of the High Court heard four appeals concerning two originating summonses (OS 704/2020 and OS 666/2020) filed by Lim Oon Kuin, Lim Chee Meng, and Lim Huey Ching against Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP. The appeals challenged the Assistant Registrar's decisions to disallow amendments to the originating summonses and to strike them out subject to an undertaking. The court dismissed all four appeals, finding that the proposed amendments constituted an abuse of process and that the originating summonses should be struck out given the respondent's undertaking.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeals dismissed, affirming decisions to disallow amendments and strike out originating summonses in Hin Leong & Ocean Tankers cases due to abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

14 August 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lim Oon Kuin	Applicant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Lim Yi Zheng of Advocatus Law LLP Suresh s/o Damodara of Damodara Ong LLC Sun Lupeng Cedric of Damodara Ong LLC Christopher Anand s/o Daniel of Advocatus Law LLP Yeo Yi Ling Eileen of Advocatus Law LLP Ong Ziying Clement of Damodara Ong LLC Ning Jie of Damodara Ong LLC Preshin Manmindar of Damodara Ong LLC Leonard Chua Jun Yi of Damodara Ong LLC Harjeen Kaur of Advocatus Law LLP
Lim Chee Meng	Applicant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Lim Yi Zheng of Advocatus Law LLP Suresh s/o Damodara of Damodara Ong LLC Sun Lupeng Cedric of Damodara Ong LLC Christopher Anand s/o Daniel of Advocatus Law LLP Yeo Yi Ling Eileen of Advocatus Law LLP Ong Ziying Clement of Damodara Ong LLC Ning Jie of Damodara Ong LLC Preshin Manmindar of Damodara Ong LLC Leonard Chua Jun Yi of Damodara Ong LLC Harjeen Kaur of Advocatus Law LLP
Lim Huey Ching	Applicant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Lim Yi Zheng of Advocatus Law LLP Suresh s/o Damodara of Damodara Ong LLC Sun Lupeng Cedric of Damodara Ong LLC Christopher Anand s/o Daniel of Advocatus Law LLP Yeo Yi Ling Eileen of Advocatus Law LLP Ong Ziying Clement of Damodara Ong LLC Ning Jie of Damodara Ong LLC Preshin Manmindar of Damodara Ong LLC Leonard Chua Jun Yi of Damodara Ong LLC Harjeen Kaur of Advocatus Law LLP
Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP	Respondent	Limited Liability Partnership	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Lok Vi Ming SC of LVM Law Chambers LLC Pak Waltan of LVM Law Chambers LLC Zhuang Wenxiong of LVM Law Chambers LLC Wong Xiao Wei of LVM Law Chambers LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Goh Yihan	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lim Yi Zheng	Advocatus Law LLP
Suresh s/o Damodara	Damodara Ong LLC
Sun Lupeng Cedric	Damodara Ong LLC
Christopher Anand s/o Daniel	Advocatus Law LLP
Yeo Yi Ling Eileen	Advocatus Law LLP
Ong Ziying Clement	Damodara Ong LLC
Ning Jie	Damodara Ong LLC
Preshin Manmindar	Damodara Ong LLC
Leonard Chua Jun Yi	Damodara Ong LLC
Harjeen Kaur	Advocatus Law LLP
Lok Vi Ming SC	LVM Law Chambers LLC
Pak Waltan	LVM Law Chambers LLC
Zhuang Wenxiong	LVM Law Chambers LLC
Wong Xiao Wei	LVM Law Chambers LLC

4. Facts

Lim Oon Kuin, Lim Chee Meng, and Lim Huey Ching filed OS 704 and OS 666 against Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP.
OS 704 stemmed from discontentment with the respondent acting for Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd.
OS 666 stemmed from discontentment with the respondent acting for Ocean Tankers Pte Ltd.
The applicants sought to restrain the respondent from representing HLT, OTPL, and their respective interim judicial managers.
The respondent ceased to advise or act for HLT and OTPL, as well as their liquidators.
The applicants filed Amendment Applications seeking new reliefs, including damages for breach of confidence.
The Assistant Registrar disallowed the Amendment Applications and granted the Striking Out Applications, subject to an undertaking.

5. Formal Citations

Lim Oon Kuin and others v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another matter, , [2023] SGHC 222

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2020-07-09	OS 666 filed
2020-07-21	OS 704 filed
2022-04-04	Court order made to amend Originating Summons
2022-06-07	Applicants obtained leave to amend OS 704 and OS 666
2022-06-13	Originating Summons (Amendment No 2) in HC/OS 704/2020
2022-08-11	Applicants filed HC/SUM 2981/2022 and HC/SUM 2982/2022 for specific discovery
2022-09-12	Respondent informed applicants of cessation of engagement with HLT and OPTL
2022-09-22	Respondent filed Striking Out Applications
2022-10-25	Applicants filed Amendment Applications
2023-05-08	Respondent provides undertaking
2023-07-05	Judgment reserved
2023-08-15	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court held that the amendments sought were an abuse of process and were not necessary to determine the real issues between the parties.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Necessity of amendment
  - Timing of amendment
  - Prejudice to other party
- Related Cases:
  - [2005] 1 SLR(R) 502
  - [2010] 1 SLR 52
Striking Out
- Outcome: The court held that the originating summonses should be struck out, subject to the respondent providing a suitable undertaking.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Abuse of process
  - Practical purpose of proceedings
- Related Cases:
  - [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the applicants' conduct constituted an abuse of process, particularly under the Henderson doctrine.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Collateral purpose
  - Vexatious litigation
  - Henderson v Henderson doctrine
- Related Cases:
  - [1843] 3 Hare 100
  - [1982] AC 529
  - [2002] 2 AC 1
  - [2015] 5 SLR 1104

8. Remedies Sought

Injunctive Relief
Damages
Declarations
Account of Profits

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Confidence
Injunction

10. Practice Areas

Litigation
Appeals

11. Industries

Legal Services
Shipping
Commodities Trading

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (under judicial management) v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 47	Singapore	Cited for the striking out of OS 704 and OS 666 at first instance due to lack of standing.
Hin Leong Trading (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation) v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 253	Singapore	Cited for the striking out of OS 704 and OS 666 on appeal due to lack of standing.
Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (under judicial management) v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 144	Singapore	Cited for the rejection of the joinder applications at first instance.
Lim Oon Kuin and others v Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 2 SLR 280	Singapore	Cited for allowing the joinder applications on appeal, enabling LCM and LHC to maintain OS 704 and OS 666 in their personal capacities.
TMT Asia Ltd v BHP Billiton Marketing AG (Singapore Branch) and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 710	Singapore	Cited for the principle that continued prosecution of a claim is an abuse of process when a settlement offer provides all reliefs sought.
Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 4 SLR 476	Singapore	Cited regarding constitutional challenges and the need for a subsisting prosecution, distinguished in the present context.
Chwee Kin Cheong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR(R) 502	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court may grant leave to amend a pleading at any stage of the proceedings.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 52	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court's discretion to grant leave to amend should be exercised if it enables the real question in controversy to be determined, and it must be just to grant such leave.
Henderson v Henderson	N/A	Yes	[1843] 3 Hare 100	N/A	Cited for the Henderson doctrine, which states that parties must bring forward their whole case and will not be permitted to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward.
Seele Austria GmbH Co v Tokio Marine Europe Insurance Limited	English High Court	Yes	[2009] EWHC 255	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court should be astute to prevent a claiming party from putting its case one way, thereby causing the other side to incur considerable expense, only for the claiming party to lose and then come up with a different way of putting the same case, so as to begin the process all over again.
Wright Norman and another v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR(R) 640	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an application to amend should generally be allowed provided that allowing it will not prejudice the other party.
Kettleman v Hansel Properties	House of Lords	Yes	[1987] AC 189	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that an application to amend should generally be allowed provided that allowing it will not prejudice the other party.
Cropper v Smith	English Court of Appeal	Yes	(1884) 26 Ch D 700	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an amendment which would allow the real issues between the parties to be tried should be allowed subject to penalties on costs and adjournment.
Haco Far East Pte Ltd v Ong Heh Lai Francis	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 3 SLR(R) 959	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the originating summons process would not be appropriate where there is a dispute regarding essential facts.
Kamla Lal Hiranand v Lal Hiranand	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 198	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the originating summons process should only be invoked where the material facts are not in dispute and the matter is one in which the court may make a clear and final order disposing of the dispute between the parties.
Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 457	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court will disallow an amendment that would later be struck out or is merely technical or trivial.
The Royal Bank of Scotland NV (formerly known as ABN Amro Bank NV) and others v TT International Ltd (nTan Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd and others, other parties) and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 1104	Singapore	Cited for the Henderson doctrine and the extended doctrine of res judicata.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Henderson doctrine is essentially a defence of abuse of process.
Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly Contour Aerospace)	UK Supreme Court	Yes	[2014] AC 160	United Kingdom	Cited for the overlapping concepts of res judicata and abuse of process.
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police and others	House of Lords	Yes	[1982] AC 529	United Kingdom	Cited for the inherent power of any court of justice to prevent the misuse of its procedure.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm)	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 1	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the inquiry into abuse of process is a broad, merits-based judgment.
Tanoto Sau Ian v USP Group Ltd and another matter	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 106	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court will exercise its discretion to strike a balance between allowing a litigant with a genuine claim to have his day in court and ensuring that the litigation process would not be unduly oppressive to the defendant.
Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 2 SLR 760	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court will be mindful of the considerations which led a claimant to act as he did.
Tannu v Moosajee and another	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] EWCA Civ 815	England and Wales	Cited for the suggestion that the principle in Henderson v Henderson may be applied in relation to separate stages of the same litigation.
Gruber and another v AIG Management France, SA and another	English High Court	Yes	[2019] EWHC 1676 (Comm)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the Henderson doctrine is not restricted to cases where the alleged abuse comes in a separate, later action.
Kensell v Khoury and another	English High Court	Yes	[2020] EWHC 567 (Ch)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the existence of a broad discretion in an amendment application should not preclude the application of the Henderson doctrine within the same action.
Union of India v Reliance Industries Ltd and another	English High Court	Yes	[2022] EWHC 1407 (Comm)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the Henderson v Henderson principle can apply to all stages of the same proceedings, to defences as well as claims, and in an arbitration as well as litigation.
Metreco Industries Sdn Bhd v Muhammad Fadhil bin Ab Wahid and another appeal	Malaysian Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 12 MLJ 164	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the Henderson doctrine could apply within the same litigation.
Government of Malaysia v Dato’ Chong Kok Lim	Ipoh High Court	Yes	[1973] 2 MLJ 74	Malaysia	Cited for the principle of res judicata applying between two stages in the same litigation.
Peareth v Marriot	N/A	Yes	[1883] 22 Ch D 182	N/A	Cited for the principle that a decision given by a court at one stage on a particular matter or issue is binding on it at a later stage in the same suit or in a subsequent suit.
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 wide interpretation of the term 'abuse of the process of the Court'.
Leong Quee Ching Karen v Lim Soon Huat and others	High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHC 309	Singapore	Cited for the principle that rejecting a reasonable offer to buy out a minority oppressive suit may amount to an abuse of process.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 5 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court
Order 5 Rule 4(2) of the Rules of Court
Order 18 Rule 19(1)(d) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Originating Summons
Amendment Applications
Striking Out Applications
Abuse of Process
Henderson Doctrine
Final Injunctive Relief
Breach of Confidence
Undertaking

15.2 Keywords

Originating Summons
Amendment
Striking Out
Abuse of Process
Henderson
Injunction
Hin Leong
Ocean Tankers
Rajah & Tann

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Abuse of Process	90
Henderson v Henderson doctrine	85
Civil Procedure	75
Injunctions	60
Bankruptcy	30
Company Law	30
Commercial Disputes	25
Administrative Law	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Abuse of Process
Amendments
Striking Out