W. Power Group EOOD v. Ming Yang Wind Power: Security for Costs in Wind Farm Joint Venture Dispute

In W. Power Group EOOD v. Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. Ltd, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed an application by the defendant, Ming Yang Wind Power, for security for costs against the claimant, W. Power Group EOOD, in a dispute arising from a joint venture agreement to develop wind farm projects. The court, presided over by Thomas Bathurst IJ, ordered the claimant to provide S$70,000 as security for the defendant's costs, finding that the claimant's financial status warranted such security and that there was no undue delay in the defendant's application.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Singapore International Commercial Court

1.2 Outcome

Claimant ordered to provide security for defendant's costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The Singapore International Commercial Court ordered W. Power Group EOOD to provide security for costs to Ming Yang Wind Power in a joint venture dispute.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
W. Power Group EOODClaimantCorporationSecurity for costs orderedLost
Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. LtdDefendantCorporationSecurity for costs grantedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Thomas BathurstInternational JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Han Wah TengCTLC Law Corporation
William Ong Boon HweeAllen & Gledhill LLP
Ivan Lim Jun RuiAllen & Gledhill LLP
Wong Pei TingAllen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

  1. Claimant is a company registered in Bulgaria.
  2. Defendant is a Chinese company incorporated in Hong Kong.
  3. Claimant and defendant entered into a joint venture agreement on 3 July 2011.
  4. The joint venture was to develop two wind farm projects.
  5. Claimant alleges defendant breached the joint venture agreement.
  6. Defendant claims the joint venture was no longer viable due to changes in Bulgarian law.
  7. Defendant sought security of S$80,000 for its costs.

5. Formal Citations

  1. W Power Group EOOD v Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co Ltd, Originating Application No 2 of 2023 (Summons No 13 of 2023), [2023] SGHC(I) 15

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Joint venture agreement entered into
Statement of claim served
Transfer to the Singapore International Commercial Court ordered
First case management conference called
Summons filed by defendant seeking security for costs
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Security for Costs
    • Outcome: The court ordered the claimant to provide security for the defendant's costs, finding that the requirements of s 388 of the Companies Act 1967 were met and that there was no undue delay in the defendant's application.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Impecuniosity of claimant
      • Claimant ordinarily resident out of jurisdiction
      • Delay in application for security
      • Stifling of legitimate claim

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Security for Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • International Commercial Arbitration

11. Industries

  • Energy
  • Wind Power

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Jurong Town Corporation v Wishing Star LtdCourt of AppealYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 427SingaporeCited regarding the court's discretion to refuse to grant security for costs even if the threshold is met.
Zhong Da Chemical Development Co Ltd v Lanco Industries LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 1017SingaporeCited regarding the principles applicable to security for costs applications in cases involving the International Arbitration Act.
Peng Ann Realty Pte Ltd v Liu Cho Chit and othersN/AYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 178N/ACited for the principle that security should not be awarded if the impecuniosity of the claimant was caused by the conduct of the defendant or if the application was used to stifle a legitimate claim.
Sembawang Engineering Pte Ltd v Priser Asia Engineering Pte LtdN/AYes[1992] 2 SLR 806N/ACited for the principle that security should not be awarded if the impecuniosity of the claimant was caused by the conduct of the defendant or if the application was used to stifle a legitimate claim.
Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries LtdN/AYes[2023] 1 SLR 96N/ACited regarding the different manner in which costs are assessed in proceedings before the SICC.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021 Order 9 r 12

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act 1967Singapore
Limitation Act 1959Singapore
International Arbitration Act 2002Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Security for costs
  • Joint venture agreement
  • Wind farm projects
  • Impecuniosity
  • Choice of Court Convention
  • Singapore International Commercial Court

15.2 Keywords

  • Security for costs
  • Joint venture
  • Wind farm
  • Singapore International Commercial Court
  • Companies Act
  • Breach of contract

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Security for Costs95
Civil Procedure75
Company Law30
Business Litigation25
Arbitration15

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Security for Costs
  • Company Law
  • Contract Law