Chainani v Singh: Striking Out Amendment Resiling from Admission

In Tarun Hotchand Chainani v Avinderpal Singh, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed an application to strike out a sentence in the first defendant's amended defense. The plaintiff, Tarun Hotchand Chainani, sought to strike out a sentence that contradicted a prior admission regarding an understanding between him and the first defendant, Avinderpal Singh, concerning the use of a company as an investment vehicle. AR Wong Hee Jinn allowed the plaintiff's application, finding that the amendment was not consequential and impermissibly sought to re-open an issue that had previously been admitted to.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's application to strike out the Impugned Sentence allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court strikes out amendment to defense that impermissibly resiled from a prior admission regarding an understanding between business partners.

1.7 Decision Date

29 May 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tarun Hotchand Chainani	Plaintiff	Individual	Application allowed	Won	Chacko Samuel of Legis Point LLC Anne-Marie John of Legis Point LLC
Avinderpal Singh s/o Ranjit Singh	Defendant	Individual	Application to strike out sentence allowed	Lost	Nur Halimatul Syafheqah Binte Rosman of Gabriel Law Corporation
Avitar Enterprises Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Neutral	Neutral	Nur Halimatul Syafheqah Binte Rosman of Gabriel Law Corporation
Avitar Holdings Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Neutral	Neutral	Nur Halimatul Syafheqah Binte Rosman of Gabriel Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Wong Hee Jinn	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chacko Samuel	Legis Point LLC
Anne-Marie John	Legis Point LLC
Nur Halimatul Syafheqah Binte Rosman	Gabriel Law Corporation

4. Facts

Plaintiff and first defendant are former business partners and equal shareholders and directors in the third defendant company.
The plaintiff brought claims against the defendants based on a purported understanding regarding the use of the second defendant as an investment vehicle.
The first defendant initially denied the existence of the Understanding.
The parties entered into a Settlement Agreement to jointly appoint an auditor to ascertain profits and/or losses from the sale of properties.
The first defendant accepted the existence of the Understanding as a necessary implication of the Settlement Agreement.
The first defendant filed DA 2, which included a sentence that the plaintiff sought to strike out.
The plaintiff contended that the Impugned Sentence is a non-consequential amendment and impermissibly reintroduces the issue of whether the Understanding applies to the local properties.

5. Formal Citations

Tarun Hotchand Chainani v Avinderpal Singh s/o Ranjit Singh and others, Suit No 703 of 2020, [2023] SGHCR 5

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2020-08-03	Plaintiff commenced the Suit against the defendants and filed his Statement of Claim.
2020-09-06	First defendant filed his Defence.
2021-05-12	Plaintiff filed his Statement of Claim (Amendment No 1).
2021-07-14	Plaintiff filed the Discovery Application.
2021-07-15	Plaintiff filed his Statement of Claim (Amendment No 2).
2011-07-26	Plaintiff and the first defendant entered into a Settlement Agreement.
2022-04-12	First hearing of the Discovery Application.
2022-04-18	First defendant’s counsel informed the plaintiff’s counsel by way of a letter that the plaintiff “does not (to that extent only) dispute the Statement of Claim Amendment No. 1, insofar as the Understanding (as defined paragraph 8.)
2022-04-21	Second hearing of the Discovery Application.
2022-07-27	First defendant filed his Defence (Amendment No 1).
2022-10-10	Plaintiff filed his Reply (Amendment No 1).
2023-02-06	Plaintiff filed his Statement of Claim (Amendment No 3).
2023-02-15	Counsel for the first defendant indicated at a Pre-Trial Conference that the amendments made would be limited to consequential amendments.
2023-02-20	First defendant filed his Defence (Amendment No 2).
2023-03-13	Plaintiff filed the present application vide HC/SUM 671/2023 to strike out the third sentence of paragraph 10 of DA 2.
2023-04-17	Judgment Date
2023-05-30	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Striking out pleadings
- Outcome: The court allowed the plaintiff's application to strike out the Impugned Sentence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Amendment of pleadings
  - Resiling from admissions
- Related Cases:
  - [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582
  - [1995] 3 SLR(R) 334
Amendment of pleadings
- Outcome: The court considered the principles governing amendment of pleadings, including whether the amendment would enable the real questions and/or issues in controversy between the parties to be determined, and whether procedural fairness to the opposing party be maintained.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 3 SLR 524
  - [2010] 1 SLR 52
Admissions
- Outcome: The court considered whether the first defendant should be allowed to resile from its prior admission.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Withdrawal of admissions
  - Erroneous admission
- Related Cases:
  - [1892] 3 Ch 226
  - [2011] NSWSC 1326

8. Remedies Sought

Complete account of all investments and profits
Damages
Winding up of the second and third defendants

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Understanding
Oppressive conduct within the meaning of s 216 of the Companies Act

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Gabriel Peter Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others	High Court	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the power to strike out ought only to be invoked in a plain and obvious case.
Chee Siok Chin and other v Minister for Home Affairs and another	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited for the definitions of 'frivolous' and 'vexatious' proceedings.
Active Timber Agencies Pte Ltd v Allen & Gledhill	High Court	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR(R) 334	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court may have regard to the history of the matter and relevant correspondence exchanged between the parties, in addition to the pleadings.
Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield International (Hong Kong) Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 524	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court has a broad discretion to allow amendment at any stage of proceedings on such terms as may be just.
Review Publishing Co Ltd and another v Lee Hsien Loong and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 52	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court is to have regard to the “justice of the case” and in doing so, ought to bear in mind two key factors, namely, whether any prejudice would be caused to the other party which cannot be compensated for in costs and whether the applicant is effectively asking for a second bite at the cherry.
Hollis v Burton	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1892] 3 Ch 226	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an admission, made inadvertently and in a case of a bona fide mistake, may be withdrawn, and the pleading amended accordingly.
Bank of Western Australia Ltd v Coppola	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2011] NSWSC 1326	Australia	Cited for the relevant legal principles in determining whether a party may withdraw its admissions.
Maile v Rafiq	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] NSWCA 410	Australia	Cited for the principle that there must be proper grounds for the exercise of the discretion to withdraw an admission.
Langdale v Danby	Unknown	Yes	[1982] 3 All ER 129	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that where leave to withdraw an admission is sought, a court will require an explanation for the making of the admission.
Crumper v Pothecary	Unknown	Yes	[1941] 2 KB 58	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that where leave to withdraw an admission is sought, a court will require an explanation for the making of the admission.
Celestino v Celestino	Federal Court of Australia	Yes	[1990] FCA 299	Australia	Cited for the principle that where leave to withdraw an admission is sought, a court will require an explanation for the making of the admission.
Jeans v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd	Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia	Yes	[2003] FCAFC 309	Australia	Cited for the principle that where leave to withdraw an admission is sought, a court will require an explanation for the making of the admission.
For The Good Times Pty Ltd v Coltern Pty Ltd	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2007] NSWSC 108	Australia	Cited for the principle that an erroneous admission should be able to be withdrawn unless other factors outweigh.
Borneo Housing Mortgage Finance Bhd v Personal Representatives of the Estate of Lee Lun Wah Maureen & Anor	Unknown	Yes	[1994] 1 MLJ 209	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that an admission deprives a party from challenging the admitted fact at trial.
Pioneer Plastic Containers Ltd v Commissioner of Customs and Excise	Unknown	Yes	[1967] Ch 597	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that admissions go towards the preservation of judicial resources as no further evidence has to be adduced in reference to those facts that have been admitted.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)
O 18 rr 19(1)(b) of the Rules
O 18 r 19(1)(d) of the Rules
O 92 r 4 of the Rules
O 20 r 5(1) of the Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Understanding
Impugned Sentence
Settlement Agreement
Consequential amendment
Admission
Pleadings
Discovery Application

15.2 Keywords

civil procedure
pleadings
striking out
amendment
admission
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Practice	75
Commercial Disputes	40
Contract Law	30
Company Law	25
Estoppel	20
Evidence	20
Minority Oppression	20
Duty to Account	20
Fiduciary Duties	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Pleadings
Amendment of Pleadings
Striking Out