Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC v Feng Shi: Striking Out Claims & Abuse of Process
Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC, on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP, brought claims against Feng Shi, Alex SK Liu, and Haven Global Network Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore. Liu applied to strike out Cachet's claims, arguing they were an abuse of process under O 9 r 16 of the Rules of Court 2021. The court dismissed Liu's application, finding that the claims were not an abuse of process, legally unsustainable, or factually unsustainable.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to strike out claims for abuse of process. The court dismissed the application, finding no abuse of process.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP | Claimant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Won | Leow Jiamin, Nicole Seah |
| Feng Shi | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Alex SK Liu | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | N Sreenivasan SC, Claire Tan, Kelvin Lee, Samantha Ong |
| Haven Global Network Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Perry Peh | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leow Jiamin | WongPartnership LLP |
| Nicole Seah | WongPartnership LLP |
| N Sreenivasan SC | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| Claire Tan | K&L Gates Straits Law LLC |
| Kelvin Lee | WNLEX LLC |
| Samantha Ong | WNLEX LLC |
4. Facts
- Cachet invested US$20m in Haven under a Subscription Agreement.
- Shi made representations that induced Cachet's investment.
- Cachet discovered the representations were false and fraudulent.
- Cachet commenced arbitration against Haven, which it won.
- Cachet commenced arbitration against Shi to enforce a Deed of Undertaking, which it won.
- Cachet initiated enforcement proceedings in Hong Kong and the United States.
- Cachet claimed the defendants conspired to defraud Cachet and misuse the investment sum.
5. Formal Citations
- Cachet Multi Strategy Fund SPC on behalf of Cachet Special Opportunities SP v Feng Shi and others, Originating Claim No 10 of 2022 (Summons No 2215 of 2023), [2023] SGHCR 16
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Cachet entered into a Subscription Agreement with Haven. | |
| Cachet demanded a return of the Investment Sum. | |
| Cachet commenced an arbitration against Haven. | |
| Shi only paid US$200,000 as capital contribution. | |
| Cachet commenced another arbitration against Shi to enforce the Deed. | |
| Enforcement proceedings in California commenced. | |
| Enforcement proceedings in Hong Kong commenced. | |
| The Haven Interim Award was delivered. | |
| The Haven Final Award was delivered. | |
| Originating Claim No 10 of 2022 filed. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that the claims were not an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Re-litigation of previously arbitrated matters
- Collateral purpose of litigation
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 1 SLR 818
- [2022] 2 SLR 1018
- Extended Doctrine of Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court held that the extended doctrine of res judicata can apply even if the defendant in the subsequent court proceedings was not a party to the previous arbitration.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Application to non-parties of prior arbitration
- Overlap of subject matter with prior arbitration
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 1 SLR 966
- Director's Liability
- Outcome: The court held that the Said v Butt principle did not apply to strike out the claims because the claims were not solely based on the company's contractual breaches.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of Said v Butt principle
- Breach of fiduciary duty
- Related Cases:
- [1920] 2 KB 497
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the conspiracy claims were factually sustainable.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unlawful means conspiracy
- Lawful means conspiracy
8. Remedies Sought
- Recovery of legal costs from Haven Arbitration
- Recovery of unpaid interest on the Investment Sum
- Recovery of legal costs from Deed Arbitration
- Recovery of expenses from Hong Kong enforcement proceedings
- Recovery of expenses from California enforcement proceedings
9. Cause of Actions
- Unlawful Means Conspiracy
- Lawful Means Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Arbitration
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Said v Butt | King's Bench | Yes | [1920] 2 KB 497 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that directors are exempt from personal liability for contractual breaches of their company if their acts are not in breach of any fiduciary or other personal legal duties owed to the company. |
| PT Sandipala Arthaputra and others v STMicroelectronics Asia Pacific Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 818 | Singapore | Cited for explaining the Said v Butt principle and its application to directors' liability for company's contractual breaches. |
| Iskandar bin Rahmat and others v Attorney-General and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 2 SLR 1018 | Singapore | Cited for the tests applicable to striking out claims under O 9 r 16(1)(b) and O 9 r 16(1)(c) of the Rules of Court 2021. |
| 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 'abuse of the process of the Court' and that the categories of conduct rendering a claim an abuse of process are not closed. |
| AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 966 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the extended doctrine of res judicata can operate to preclude the reopening in subsequent court proceedings of subject matter properly belonging to or which have been dealt with in an earlier arbitration. |
| Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Zodiac Seats UK Ltd (formerly Contour Aerospace Ltd) | England and Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 WLR 299 | England and Wales | Cited regarding whether the extended doctrine of res judicata is a procedural or substantive rule. |
| David Williams QC and Mark Tushingham, “The Application of the Henderson v Henderson Rule in International Arbitration” | Singapore Academy of Law Journal | Yes | (2014) 26 SAcLJ 1036 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether the extended doctrine of res judicata is a procedural or substantive rule. |
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a claim being 'legally unsustainable' or 'factually unsustainable'. |
| Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel, and the extended doctrine of res judicata. |
| 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 policy that litigants should not be twice vexed in the same matter, and that the public interest requires finality in litigation. |
| CLX v CLY and another and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 17 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court may disallow a party to raise certain points in subsequent court proceedings which it could and should have raised in the earlier arbitration. |
| Denmark Skibstekniske Konsulenter A/S I Likvidation (formerly known as Knud E Hansen A/S) v Ultrapolis 3000 Investments Ltd (formerly known as Ultrapolis 3000 Theme Park Investments Ltd) | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 997 | Singapore | Cited as an illustration of a case where the extended doctrine of res judicata was applied to preclude a cross-claim in resisting a winding-up application. |
| Dallal v Bank Mellat | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1986] QB 441 | England and Wales | Cited as an illustration of a case where the extended doctrine of res judicata was applied to strike out claims brought in English courts after a claim was dismissed by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal. |
| Henderson v Henderson | High Court of Chancery | Yes | (1843) 3 Hare 100 | England and Wales | Cited as the principle that the court prevents a party from raising certain points in later proceedings even when they had not been raised in the earlier proceedings. |
| Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v Nurdian Cuaca and others | High Court | Yes | [2018] 3 SLR 117 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the extended doctrine has been applied, even where the parties to the previous and subsequent proceedings were not the same. |
| Kwa Ban Cheong v Kuah Boon Sek and others | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 644 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the question of whether there is an abuse of process requires the court to look at 'all the circumstances of the case'. |
| Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police | House of Lords | Yes | [1982] AC 529 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the extended doctrine has been applied, even where the parties to the previous and subsequent proceedings were not the same. |
| AKN and another v ALC and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 488 | Singapore | Cited for the foundational principle in arbitration is the notion of party autonomy. |
| Nagaenthran a/l K Dharmalingam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 216 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court’s jurisdiction over the dispute and the authority associated with any of its judgments and/or orders is an incident of its judicial power. |
| Lincoln National Life Insurance Co v Sun Life Assurance Co of Canada and others | England and Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] EWCA Civ 1660 | England and Wales | Cited for an example of a defendant who invokes the extended doctrine of res judicata to prevent the claimant’s subsequent claims in court against him from proceeding on the basis of an abuse of process does not rely as against that claimant rights or liabilities established in the previous arbitration. |
| Tjong Very Sumito and others v Antig Investments Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 732 | Singapore | Cited for the judicial policy of supporting and facilitating the arbitral process. |
| Larsen Oil and Gas Pte Ltd v Petropod Ltd (in official liquidation in the Caymand Islands and in compulsory liquidation in Singapore) | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 414 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that arbitration clauses should be generously construed such that all manner of claims, whether common law or statutory, should be regarded as falling within their scope unless there is good reason to conclude otherwise. |
| Johnson v Gore Wood & Co (a firm) | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] AC 1 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the presence of a collateral attack is one which will render the subsequent proceedings 'much more obviously abusive'. |
| Fortune Pharmacal Co Ltd v Falcon Insurance Company (Hong Kong) Limited and another | Hong Kong Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] HKCA 66 | Hong Kong | Cited in support of the position that the extended doctrine of res judicata applied to cases involving related litigation and arbitration even where the parties to both had not been identical. |
| OK Tedi Fly River Development Foundation Ltd and others v Ok Tedi Mining Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] 3 SLR 652 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it will not suffice for the claimant to merely plead a bare allegation of breach of fiduciary duties or other personal duties without the requisite particulars. |
| Chandra Winata Lie v Citibank NA | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 875 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a claimant seeking to sue another is obliged to plead all material facts constituting a complete cause of action and furnish sufficient particulars for the defendant to have reasonable notice of the case it has to meet. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 | Singapore |
| International Arbitration Act 2002 | Singapore |
| Arbitration Act 2002 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Abuse of process
- Extended doctrine of res judicata
- Said v Butt principle
- Conspiracy
- Arbitration
- Subscription Agreement
- Investment Sum
- Representations
- Fiduciary duty
- Unlawful means
- Lawful means
15.2 Keywords
- Striking out
- Abuse of process
- Res judicata
- Director liability
- Conspiracy
- Arbitration
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Arbitration
- Conspiracy
- Director's Liability
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Abuse of Process
- Arbitration Law