Cosmetic Care Asia v Sri Linarti: Striking Out Application for Breach of Settlement Agreement
Cosmetic Care Asia Limited, OBM (Technical Services) Pte Limited, Facial Care Services Pte Limited, Hair System Management Pte Limited, and Global Beauty International Pte. Limited (Plaintiffs) sued Sri Linarti Sasmito, PT Cosmeticindo Slimming Utama, PT Cantiksindo Utama, and PT Hairindo Pratama (Defendants) in the General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore, alleging breach of a settlement agreement. The Plaintiffs claimed the Defendants failed to make certain installment payments. The Defendants applied to strike out the Plaintiffs' action, arguing that the Plaintiffs had breached their own obligations under the agreement. The court dismissed the Defendants' striking out application.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Striking out application dismissed in its entirety.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiffs sued for breach of settlement agreement due to missed payments. Court dismissed Defendants' application to strike out the claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cosmetic Care Asia Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to strike out claim dismissed | Neutral | Oommen Mathew, Lim Si Cheng, See Wern Hao |
| OBM (Technical Services) Pte Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to strike out claim dismissed | Neutral | Oommen Mathew, Lim Si Cheng, See Wern Hao |
| Facial Care Services Pte Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to strike out claim dismissed | Neutral | Oommen Mathew, Lim Si Cheng, See Wern Hao |
| Hair System Management Pte Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to strike out claim dismissed | Neutral | Oommen Mathew, Lim Si Cheng, See Wern Hao |
| Global Beauty International Pte. Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to strike out claim dismissed | Neutral | Oommen Mathew, Lim Si Cheng, See Wern Hao |
| Sri Linarti Sasmito | Defendant | Individual | Application to strike out claim dismissed | Lost | Adrian Wong Soon Peng, Sarah Sim Hui Li, Sia Bao Huei |
| PT Cosmeticindo Slimming Utama | Defendant | Corporation | Application to strike out claim dismissed | Lost | Adrian Wong Soon Peng, Sarah Sim Hui Li, Sia Bao Huei |
| PT Cantiksindo Utama | Defendant | Corporation | Application to strike out claim dismissed | Lost | Adrian Wong Soon Peng, Sarah Sim Hui Li, Sia Bao Huei |
| PT Hairindo Pratama | Defendant | Corporation | Application to strike out claim dismissed | Lost | Adrian Wong Soon Peng, Sarah Sim Hui Li, Sia Bao Huei |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Andre Sim | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Adrian Wong Soon Peng | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Sarah Sim Hui Li | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Sia Bao Huei | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Oommen Mathew | Omni Law LLC |
| Lim Si Cheng | Omni Law LLC |
| See Wern Hao | Omni Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Parties executed a settlement agreement to resolve disputes in Indonesia and Singapore.
- Defendants agreed to pay Plaintiffs IDR 2,188,000,000 in installments.
- Plaintiffs were to discontinue Suit 617 and the 2nd Indonesian Proceedings.
- Defendants allegedly failed to make installment payments.
- Plaintiffs claimed breach of the settlement agreement.
- Defendants argued Plaintiffs breached their obligations to discontinue proceedings.
- Defendants applied to strike out the Plaintiffs' claim.
5. Formal Citations
- Cosmetic Care Asia Ltd and othersvSri Linarti Sasmito and others, Suit No 358 of 2022 (Summons No 482 of 2023), [2023] SGHCR 4
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Term sheet executed | |
| Acknowledgment of debt (AOD) dated | |
| PT Entities commenced legal proceedings against the 1st Plaintiff in the Central Jakarta District Court | |
| 1st Plaintiff filed a police report against the 2nd Defendant | |
| Suit 617 commenced in Singapore | |
| Central Jakarta District Court dismissed the action | |
| PT Entities appealed the judgment | |
| Settlement Agreement dated | |
| Defendants made payment of initial instalment of IDR 1bn | |
| Plaintiffs discontinued Suit 617 and the 1st Defendant withdrew their appeal in CA 13 | |
| 1st Plaintiff’s Indonesian attorney submitted a letter to the JRMR Police to withdraw the Police Report | |
| First monthly instalment was due | |
| Jakarta High Court issued a verdict to affirm the District Court’s judgment in the proceedings | |
| Defendants claim to have made payment of 21 Sept instalment | |
| Plaintiffs say that 21 Sept instalment was paid | |
| Second monthly instalment was due | |
| Defendants claim that payment was made for 21 Oct instalment | |
| Plaintiffs say that 21 Oct instalment was paid | |
| JRMR police issued two summonses to the Plaintiffs | |
| AKSET sent a letter on the 1st Plaintiff’s behalf to the JRMR Police | |
| Ms Quek was required to attend before the JRMR Police to give her testimony | |
| Mr Jason Aleksander Kardachi was required to attend before the JRMR Police to give his testimony | |
| Third monthly instalment was due | |
| AKSET met with the JRMR Police | |
| AKSET met with the JRMR Police | |
| AKSET met with the JRMR Police | |
| Present Suit was commenced | |
| Plaintiffs’ Ms Quek attended in person before the JRMR Police to provide her oral testimony | |
| Further and Better Particulars dated | |
| Further and Better Particulars dated | |
| JRMR Police issued the SP3 | |
| Parties heard on the striking out application | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Striking out pleadings
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to strike out the pleadings.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether defendant can rely on unpleaded defence
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant could not rely on an unpleaded defence.
- Category: Procedural
- Interpretation of contractual terms
- Outcome: The court interpreted the terms of the settlement agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of contract
- Outcome: The Plaintiffs alleged breach of contract by the Defendants.
- Category: Substantive
- Waiver by election
- Outcome: The Defendants argued that the Plaintiffs had waived their right to claim breach of contract by election.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Default Sum of IDR 6,957,181,489
- Indemnity against all losses and expenses
- Legal costs on a full indemnity basis
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Pleadings
- Striking out
11. Industries
- Cosmetics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 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 principle that a reasonable cause of action is one with some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleadings are considered. |
| Tan Eng Khiam v Ultra Realty Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 844 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that on an application to strike out pleadings, the pleaded facts are generally presumed to be true in favor of the plaintiff. |
| Bank of China Ltd, Singapore Branch v BP Singapore Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 738 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that on an application to strike out pleadings, the pleaded facts are generally presumed to be true in favor of the plaintiff. |
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of when a claim is 'frivolous or vexatious'. |
| Olivine Capital Pte Ltd and another v Chia Chin Yan and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1371 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties are bound by the four corners of their pleadings in interlocutory proceedings. |
| V Nithia (co-administratrix of the estate of Ponnusamy Sivapakiam, deceased) v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 1422 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that pleadings define the parameters of the case and the issues to be tried at trial. |
| Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology v Stansfield College Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 232 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a waiver is fact-dependent and pleading the material facts is an indispensable foundation upon which a plea of waiver rests. |
| Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 317 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a waiver by election arises where a party has, by words or conduct, communicated clearly and unequivocally that it has elected not to exercise one of two inconsistent rights. |
| Lim Sze Eng v Lin Choo Mee | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 414 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of 'all reasonable endeavours' or 'best endeavours' clause. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Settlement Agreement
- Instalment Obligations
- SP3 Obligations
- Default Sum
- Suit 617
- Indonesian Proceedings
- Striking out application
- Waiver by election
15.2 Keywords
- striking out
- settlement agreement
- breach of contract
- pleadings
- waiver
- election
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Settlement Agreements
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law