Peloso v Kumar: Striking Out Claim Based on Unsustainable Expert Evidence
In Peloso v Kumar, the High Court of Singapore allowed the defendants' appeal, striking out the claimant's claim. The court found that the claimant's own expert evidence supported the defendants' version of events regarding a disputed investment agreement, rendering the claim factually unsustainable. The court determined there was no triable issue of fact and allowed the appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal allowed to strike out claim. Claimant's expert evidence supported defendant's version, rendering the claim unsustainable. No triable issue of fact.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Matthew Peloso | Claimant | Individual | Claim Struck Out | Lost | |
| Vikash Kumar | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| UHP Holdings Pte Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Claimant sued defendants for $5.15m based on an Alleged 18 November Investment Agreement.
- Defendants argued the Alleged 18 November Investment Agreement was forged.
- Claimant's expert agreed with defendant's expert that the signature on the Alleged 18 November Investment Agreement was copied from another document.
- Claimant pleaded the Alleged 18 November Investment Agreement was signed physically.
- Claimant could not produce the original Alleged 18 November Investment Agreement.
- The defendants had already purchased 80% of the shares in SE for $21,000 with a structured finance facility of up to US$100m.
5. Formal Citations
- Peloso, Matthew v Vikash Kumar and another, Originating Claim No 179 of 2022 (Registrar’s Appeal No 222 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 308
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| UHP Holdings Pte Ltd incorporated | |
| 29 June Investment Agreement signed | |
| 2 July Investment Agreement signed | |
| 3 July Loan Facility Agreement entered | |
| Alleged 18 November Investment Agreement signed | |
| Share Application Form and Directors’ Resolution issued | |
| Shares allotted to UHP | |
| Correct Share Application Form and Directors’ Resolution issued | |
| OC 179 commenced | |
| Claimant provided electronic copy of Alleged 18 November Investment Agreement | |
| Defendants submitted Alleged 18 November Investment Agreement and 3 July Loan Facility to HSA | |
| HSA concluded signatures were almost superimposable | |
| Claimant exhibited forensic expert report | |
| Claimant filed further and better particulars | |
| Defendants filed SUM 2670 to strike out claim | |
| SUM 2670 dismissed by learned AR | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking Out Claim
- Outcome: The court allowed the appeal and struck out the claimant's claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Abuse of process
- Interests of justice
- Validity of Investment Agreement
- Outcome: The court found that the claimant's own expert evidence supported the defendant's version of events, rendering the claim factually unsustainable.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Investment
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leong Quee Ching Karen v Lim Soon Huat and others | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 309 | Singapore | Cited for general observations on the law on striking out. |
| Wing Joo Loong Ginseng Hong (Singapore) Co Pte Ltd v Qinghai Xinyuan Foreign Trade Co Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the power to strike out is very sparingly exercised. |
| Ko Teck Siang v Low Fong Mei | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR(R) 22 | Singapore | Endorsed the English Court of Appeal case of Wenlock v Moloney regarding the power to strike out. |
| Wenlock v Moloney | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1965] 1 WLR 1238 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the power to strike out is very sparingly exercised. |
| Koh Kim Teck v Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 52 | Singapore | Cited for the burden of proving that the claim is obviously unsustainable in a striking out application. |
| Bank of China Ltd, Singapore Branch v BP Singapore Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 738 | Singapore | Cited for the burden of proving that the claim is obviously unsustainable in a striking out application. |
| Kim Hok Yung and others v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (trading as Rabobank) (Lee Mon Sun, third party) | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 455 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there would be an abuse of process if a claimant knowingly pursues a case that is doomed to fail. |
| Asian Eco Technology Pte Ltd v Deng Yiming | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 260 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the grounds of ‘abuse of process’ and ‘interests of justice’ under O 9 r 16 of the ROC 2021 should not be construed too widely. |
| Jiangsu New Huaming International Trading Co Ltd v PT Musim Mas and another | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 27 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that pleadings are meant for parties to establish facts, and discovery and interrogatories are meant for parties to gather evidence. |
| Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1970] 1 WLR 688 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that a reasonable cause of action means a cause of action with some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleadings are considered. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 9 r 16(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 9 r 16(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| O 3 r 1(2) of the ROC 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Striking out
- Expert evidence
- Investment agreement
- Signature analysis
- Abuse of process
- Interests of justice
- Triable issue
- Forensic report
15.2 Keywords
- striking out
- expert evidence
- investment agreement
- forgery
- civil procedure
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Striking out | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Rules of Court 2021 | 70 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 65 |
| Evidence Law | 60 |
| Investment Agreement | 55 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
| Handwriting Analysis | 45 |
| Summary Judgement | 40 |
| Commercial Disputes | 30 |
| Misrepresentation | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law