Asian Eco Technology v Deng Yiming: Striking Out Pleadings & Abuse of Process
In Asian Eco Technology Pte Ltd v Deng Yiming, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by Asian Eco Technology Pte Ltd (AET) to strike out portions of pleadings, affidavits, exhibits, and written submissions filed by Deng Yiming in his defense against AET's claim for wrongfully converting diamonds. The court, presided over by Hri Kumar Nair J, granted AET's application to expunge the offending materials, except for paragraph 5 of Deng's Defence, finding them irrelevant, scandalous, and an abuse of process. The court's decision was made on 14 September 2023, with judgment reserved on 10 August 2023.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Application to expunge the Offending Materials granted, save for paragraph 5 of Deng’s Defence.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court struck out portions of the defendant's pleadings and affidavits as irrelevant and scandalous, finding an abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asian Eco Technology Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application granted in part | Partial | Yam Wern Jhien, Bethel Chan Ruiyi, Tan Li Jie Stanley |
| Deng Yiming | Defendant | Individual | Application granted against | Lost | Zhulkarnain bin Abdul Rahim, Sean Chen Siang En, Shermaine Lim Jia Qi, Cheong Wei Wen John |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hri Kumar Nair | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yam Wern Jhien | Setia Law LLC |
| Bethel Chan Ruiyi | Setia Law LLC |
| Tan Li Jie Stanley | Setia Law LLC |
| Zhulkarnain bin Abdul Rahim | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Sean Chen Siang En | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Shermaine Lim Jia Qi | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
| Cheong Wei Wen John | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP |
4. Facts
- AET claimed against Deng for wrongfully converting, detaining and/or misappropriating 627 diamond seeds and loose diamonds.
- AET alleged it had purchased the diamonds from X Diamond Capital Pte Ltd (XDC).
- Deng argued that XDC had only loaned the Diamonds to AET on the instructions or request of Wu and/or Ms Samantha.
- Deng relied on the Offending Materials to assert that AET’s parent company, Metech, and Ms Samantha were under the control or influence of Wu.
- Deng alleged Wu was using that control or influence to cause AET to "fabricate" and pursue this action against Deng.
- Deng alleged this was in the hope that it would stifle XDC’s claim against Wu in HC/OC 9/2023.
- Some of the Offending Materials were also included in an affidavit filed by Deng in Re X Diamond Capital Pte Ltd and were ordered to be expunged by the court there.
5. Formal Citations
- Asian Eco Technology Pte Ltd v Deng Yiming, Originating Claim No 161 of 2023 (Summons No 1991 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 260
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| XDC brought an action against Wu in HC/OC 9/2023. | |
| Deng filed his Defence. | |
| Deng filed the OA 148 Affidavit in HC/OA 148/2023. | |
| Hua Lei filed 2nd Affidavit. | |
| Shermaine Lim Jia Qi filed 1st Affidavit enclosing 1st Affidavit of Deng Yiming. | |
| Deng filed written submissions in SUM 1488. | |
| XDC entered judgment against Wu. | |
| 1st Deng Affidavit filed in court in SUM 1488. | |
| XDC applied for an order to examine Wu as an enforcement respondent. | |
| Wu’s appeal in HC/RA 96/2023 was dismissed. | |
| Xu Kang filed 1st Affidavit in SUM 1991. | |
| Claimant’s and Defendant's Written Submissions in HC/SUM 1991/2023 filed. | |
| Deng Yiming filed 3rd Affidavit in SUM 1991. | |
| Hearing of application in SUM 1991. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking out pleadings and affidavits
- Outcome: The court granted the application to strike out the offending materials, save for paragraph 5 of Deng’s Defence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Irrelevance
- Scandalous nature
- Abuse of process
- Related Cases:
- [2023] SGHC 201
- Abuse of process
- Outcome: The court found that it was an abuse of process for Deng to include and rely on the Offending Materials, particularly as they had previously been expunged in OA 148.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- No remedies sought
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Asian Eco Technology Pte Ltd v Deng Yiming | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 227 | Singapore | Cited for the facts and issues in the action, as set out in the grounds of decision granting AET’s application in SUM 1488. |
| Re X Diamond Capital Pte Ltd (Metech International Ltd, non-party) | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 201 | Singapore | Cited for the decision to expunge the OA 148 Documents as irrelevant. |
| Tiger Pictures Entertainment Ltd v Encore Films Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 255 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that O 9 r 16(1)(c) replaced O 18 rr 19(1)(b) and 19(1)(c) of the ROC 2014 to incorporate the Ideals as set out in O 3 r 1 of the ROC 2021. |
| Leong Quee Ching Karen v Lim Soon Huat and others | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 309 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that the authorities pre-dating the ROC 2021 remain relevant in assessing the merits of a striking out application under the ROC 2021. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1018 | Singapore | Cited for the Court of Appeal’s holdings in Iskandar bin Rahmat as regards the “abuse of process” and “interests of justice” grounds under O 9 rr 16(1)(b) and 16(1)(c) of the ROC 2021. |
| The Bunga Melati 5 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the “interest of justice” ground gives effect to the court’s inherent jurisdiction to prevent injustice, such as where the claim is plainly or obviously unsustainable. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others | unknown | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the inquiry into what constitutes an abuse of process of the court includes considerations of public policy and the interests of justice. |
| HSBC Trustee (Singapore) Ltd v Lucky Realty Co Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 885 | Singapore | Cited for the point that in all applications to the court in an action, supporting affidavits “may contain statements of information or belief with their sources and grounds clearly stated. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Striking out
- Offending Materials
- Abuse of process
- Irrelevance
- Scandalous
- Diamonds
- Judicial Management
15.2 Keywords
- striking out
- pleadings
- affidavits
- abuse of process
- irrelevance
- scandalous
- singapore
- court
- judgment
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Litigation
- Insolvency Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Striking out