Hong Kah Ing v Tee Kim Leng: Striking Out Pleadings and Security for Costs in Breach of Contract Claim

In Hong Kah Ing v Tee Kim Leng, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by the defendant, Hong Kah Ing, against the assistant registrar's decision to dismiss his applications to strike out the plaintiffs' statement of claim and for security for costs in Suit 947. The plaintiffs, including Tee Kim Leng, alleged breach of contract related to an Oral Settlement Agreement and a subsequent written Agreement concerning the transfer of shares in Silkroad Nickel. Choo Han Teck J dismissed the appeal, finding no plain and obvious defect in the plaintiffs' statement of claim and determining that the issues raised were best resolved at trial. The court also upheld the decision not to order security for costs, considering the reciprocal enforcement of judgments between Singapore and Malaysia and the plaintiffs' financial standing.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding striking out a statement of claim and security for costs in a breach of contract case. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no basis to strike out the claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Hong Kah IngAppellant, DefendantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Tee Kim LengRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal dismissedWon
Tee Chor LeongRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal dismissedWon
Toh Yew KeatRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal dismissedWon
Lee Kien HanRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal dismissedWon
Tee Yee KoonRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal dismissedWon
Phang Soon MunRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal dismissedWon
Alvin Lee Sze ChangRespondent, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Joel Chng Zi ZhaoWongPartnership LLP
Felicia Soong WanyiWongPartnership LLP
G KiranWongPartnership LLP
Joanna Qiu ZiyunWongPartnership LLP
Koong Len ShengDavid Lim & Partners LLP
Joshua Ang Zhao NengDavid Lim & Partners LLP
Rachel Chan Wai YeeDavid Lim & Partners LLP

4. Facts

  1. The appellant applied to strike out the plaintiffs’ statement of claim.
  2. The appellant applied for an order that the plaintiffs provide security for costs.
  3. The plaintiffs pleaded that the defendant was in breach of contract.
  4. The plaintiffs say that the 4th to 7th plaintiffs were at the material time partners in a Malaysian law practice, Han & Partners.
  5. The defendant was a majority shareholder in a Singaporean company, Far East Mining Pt Ltd.
  6. H&P would introduce and broker the acquisition of all the shares in one of FEM’s wholly owned Indonesian subsidiaries.
  7. The plaintiffs claim that the defendant had failed to transfer the Repayment Shares.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Hong Kah Ing v Tee Kim Leng and others, Suit No 947 of 2021, [2024] SGHC 321

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit 947 commenced
H&P, the defendant, FEM and Nasser entered into an agreement
The Transaction was completed
HC/S 1210/2018 commenced
Oral Settlement Agreement entered into
Settlement Agreement dated
Agreement dated
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Striking out pleadings
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no basis to strike out the plaintiffs’ statement of claim.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • No reasonable cause of action
      • Frivolous or vexatious claim
      • Abuse of court's process
  2. Security for costs
    • Outcome: The court agreed with the AR’s decision not to order security for costs.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Specific performance to transfer the Repayment Shares
  2. Damages for breach of the Oral Settlement Agreement

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Specific Performance

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Gabriel Peter & partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and othersHigh CourtYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649SingaporeCited for the principle that striking out pleadings should only be exercised in plain and obvious cases.
Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and othersHigh CourtYes[2011] 4 SLR 580SingaporeCited for the principle that ease of enforcement is not a determinative factor in all questions arising from applications for security of costs.
Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v Puay Kim Seng and anotherHigh CourtYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 112SingaporeCited for the principle that reciprocal enforcement of judgments between Singapore and Malaysia mitigates the difficulty of enforcement against plaintiffs based in Malaysia.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 18 r 19(1) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)
O 23 r 1 of the ROC 2014

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Statement of claim
  • Security for costs
  • Breach of contract
  • Oral Settlement Agreement
  • Repayment Shares
  • Consideration Shares
  • Reverse takeover

15.2 Keywords

  • striking out
  • security for costs
  • breach of contract
  • pleadings
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Security for Costs90
Striking Out Applications90
Breach of Contract85
Civil Practice75
Jurisdiction50

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Pleadings
  • Costs