Sang Cheol Woo v Charles Choi Spackman: Amendment of Defence, Abuse of Process & Riddick Principle
In Sang Cheol Woo v Charles Choi Spackman, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant leave to the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to amend their Defence. The case involves issues of whether the proceedings were still afoot, abuse of court process, the Riddick principle's applicability to non-parties and documents disclosed without a court order, and whether there was a real question to be determined by the proposed amendment application. The court found that the proceedings were still afoot, there was no abuse of process, the Riddick principle did not apply, and there was a real question to be determined.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding amendment of defence involving maintenance/champerty claims. Court dismissed appeal, finding no abuse of process or Riddick principle violation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sang Cheol Woo | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Charles Choi Spackman | Defendant | Individual | Leave to amend Defence granted | Won | |
| Kim Jae Seung | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Leave to amend Defence granted | Won | |
| Kim So Hee | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Leave to amend Defence granted | Won | |
| Richard Lee | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Funvest Global Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Spackman Media Group Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Plutoray Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Vaara Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Starlight Corp Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kwek Mean Luck | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff filed Suit 211 of 2019 to enforce a foreign judgment.
- The High Court ordered the suit to be bifurcated.
- The first stage of the trial concerned the enforceability of the judgment against the 1st Defendant.
- The High Court allowed the Plaintiff's claim for enforcement of the judgment in the first stage.
- The second stage of the trial concerns conspiracy claims against all defendants.
- The Plaintiff stated in an affidavit that he had a contingency fee arrangement with his foreign counsel.
- The Defendants sought to amend their Defence to include the contingency fee arrangement as maintenance/champerty.
5. Formal Citations
- Sang Cheol Woo v Spackman, Charles Choi and others, Suit No 211 of 2019, [2024] SGHC 299
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 211 of 2019 filed | |
| Notes of Evidence for HC/SUM 4716/2021 | |
| HC/SUM 4716/2021 filed | |
| High Court allowed the Plaintiff’s claim for the enforcement of the SHCJ in Singapore | |
| Plaintiff’s 6th affidavit filed in S592 | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court found that it had jurisdiction to hear the amendment application.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2022] 1 SLR 643
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the proposed amendments did not amount to an abuse of process.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2024] EWHC 552 (Ch)
- Applicability of Riddick Principle
- Outcome: The court found that the Riddick principle did not apply to the Plaintiff's 6th Affidavit.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1997] QB 881
- [2020] 2 SLR 695
- Maintenance and Champerty
- Outcome: The court found that there was a real question to be determined regarding maintenance and champerty.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2022] SGHC(A) 5
8. Remedies Sought
- Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
- Lawful Means Conspiracy
- Unlawful Means Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sang Cheol Woo v Charles Choi Spackman and ors | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 298 | Singapore | Allowed the Plaintiff’s claim for the enforcement of the SHCJ in Singapore. |
| Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1997] QB 881 | England and Wales | Established the Riddick principle regarding the use of disclosed documents. |
| Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred v Phua Swee Khiang and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 5 | Singapore | Shows that the prohibition against maintenance and champerty in the common law, does not extend only to the relationship between the instructed lawyer and client. |
| Lyubov Andreevna Kireeva v Zolotova & Anor | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2024] EWHC 552 (Ch) | England and Wales | Discussed the effect of a potentially champertous fee agreement. |
| ED&F Man Capital Markets Ltd v Straits (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 695 | Singapore | Addressed the Riddick undertaking and its applicability to documents disclosed without compulsion. |
| Foo Jong Long Dennis v Ang Yee Lim and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 578 | Singapore | Discussed the open court exception to the Riddick principle. |
| Re Vanguard Energy Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 597 | Singapore | The doctrine of champerty and maintenance is a rule of public policy concerned with the protection of “the purity of justice and the interests of vulnerable litigants” in relation to the administration of justice in Singapore |
| Mansell v Robinson | N/A | Yes | [2007] All ER (D) 279 (Jan) | England and Wales | The doctrine does not apply to fee arrangements entered into with foreign counsel that do not have a “direct or necessary relationship” to Singapore litigation |
| In re Trepca Mines Ltd (No. 2) | N/A | Yes | [1963] Ch 199 | England and Wales | Denning LJ pointed out that the practice of a contingency fee arrangement is prevalent in the United States of America. |
| Lim Suk Ling Priscilla and anor v Amber Compounding Pharmacy Pte Ltd and anor and anor matter and anor appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 912 | Singapore | The core principle applies equally to documents which were disclosed to resist interlocutory applications” even if not made under compulsion of a court order. |
| Helicopter Aerial Surveys Pty Ltd v Garry Robertson | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2015] NSWSC 2104 | Australia | The implied undertaking should in principle be regarded as attaching not only to documents produced as a result of the actual invocation of compulsory process, but equally to documents produced in response to an informal request for disclosure in the context of proceedings in which, but for informal disclosure, a formal order could have been obtained. |
| Ong Jane Rebecca v Lim Lie Hoa and or appeals and or matters | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 584 | Singapore | These principles apply equally to an affidavit filed under compulsion as they do a document |
| Distillers Co (Biochemicals) Ltd v Times Newspapers Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1975] QB 613 | England and Wales | The Riddick undertaking applies even to non-parties to the proceedings in which the document was disclosed (under compulsion) |
| Hearne v Street | N/A | Yes | 248 ALR 609 | Australia | The Riddick undertaking applies even to non-parties to the proceedings in which the document was disclosed (under compulsion) |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Review Publishing Co Ltd and anor and anor suit | High Court | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Hearings in chambers are private in nature |
| Emjay Enterprises Pte Ltd v Skylift Consolidator (Pte) Ltd (Direct Services (HK) Ltd, third party) | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 268 | Singapore | Interlocutory judgment was entered on behalf of the plaintiff. The defendant sought to amend its pleadings to raise a limitation of liability clause at the stage of assessment of damages. The High Court found (at [32]) that this related to liability rather than quantum. As interlocutory judgment had been entered into by this point, allowing the amendment application would cause irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff. |
| Meadowside Building Developments Ltd v 12-18 Hill St Management Company Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2019] EWHC 2651 (TCC) | England and Wales | In determining whether champerty amounts to an abuse of process, the Court would consider the terms and circumstances of the fee arrangement in question |
| Shanghai Shipyard Co Ltd v Opus Tiger 1 Pte Ltd and anor and or appeals and anor matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 1 SLR 643 | Singapore | Considered the meaning of “at any stage of proceedings” under O 15 r 6(2)(b) ROC 2014 (which deals with joinder of parties). |
| The Duke of Buccleuch | N/A | Yes | [1892] P 201 | N/A | Something remained to be done, as the assessment of damages was still outstanding. |
| Choo Cheng Tong Wilfred v Phua Swee Khiang and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 154 | Singapore | Even though s 5A(1) of the Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed) abolished the common law tort of maintenance and champerty, it remains “established” law that contracts which savour of maintenance or champerty are void as being contrary to public policy at common law |
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | High Court | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | A claim is “factually unsustainable” if it is “possible to say with confidence before trial that the factual basis for the claim is fanciful because it is entirely without substance |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 20 r 5(1) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act 1966 (2020 Rev Ed) s 107(1) | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed) s 5A(1) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Amendment of Defence
- Abuse of Process
- Riddick Principle
- Maintenance
- Champerty
- Contingency Fee Arrangement
- Enforcement of Foreign Judgment
- Bifurcation
- Seoul High Court Judgment
- Third-Party Funding
15.2 Keywords
- amendment
- defence
- abuse of process
- riddick principle
- maintenance
- champerty
- singapore
- court
- judgment
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Litigation