Lim Jen Lin v Energy Market Company: Striking Out & Natural Justice Appeal

In Lim Jen Lin v Energy Market Company Pte Ltd, Ms. Lim appealed to the High Court against the decision of the Principal District Judge Toh Han Li, who dismissed her appeal against Deputy Registrar Kaur's decision to strike out her writ of summons in DC/DC 459 of 2022. This suit concerned the same $200,000 claim from a previous case (Suit 4 of 2011) but now included the lawyers involved. The High Court, noting the issue stemmed from a payment not received due to a dispute over legal fees, proposed a solution and recused himself from hearing the appeal on its merits.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

The Judge recused himself from hearing the appeal on its merits.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Lim Jen Lin appeals the striking out of her suit against Energy Market Company. The High Court identifies a solution and recuses itself.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lim Jen LinAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal not heard on meritsNeutral
Ong Ying Ping of Ong Ying Ping Esq
Lee Ming Le of Ong Ying Ping Esq
Energy Market Company Pte LtdRespondent, DefendantCorporationAppeal not heard on meritsNeutral
Pan Xingzheng EdricRespondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal not heard on meritsNeutral
Rodyk & Davidson LLPRespondent, DefendantLimited Liability PartnershipAppeal not heard on meritsNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ong Ying PingOng Ying Ping Esq
Lee Ming LeOng Ying Ping Esq
Chiang Ju Hua AudreyDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Sim Zhi Quan SeanDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP

4. Facts

  1. Ms. Lim sued Energy in 2011 for wrongful dismissal, claiming $200,000.
  2. Energy accepted Ms. Lim's offer to settle for $200,000 in 2015.
  3. Ms. Lim's appeal against the settlement order was deemed withdrawn.
  4. Ms. Lim sued again in 2022 for the same $200,000, naming new parties.
  5. Energy sent two cheques for $200,000 to Ms. Lim's lawyers, Ang & Partners.
  6. Ang & Partners withheld the payment due to unpaid legal fees of $250,000.
  7. Energy and their lawyers were unaware that Ms. Lim had not received the payment.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lim Jen Lin v Energy Market Company Pte Ltd and others, , [2024] SGHC 35

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Ms. Lim resigned from Energy.
Ms. Lim sued Energy in Suit 4 of 2011.
Energy accepted Ms. Lim's Offer to Settle.
Court of Appeal declared Ms Lim's appeal withdrawn.
Ms. Lim sued in DC/DC 459 of 2022.
Hearing on appeal by Ms. Lim.
Parties to return for directions on costs.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Bias
    • Outcome: The Judge recused himself due to a potential appearance of bias.
    • Category: Procedural
  2. Striking Out
    • Outcome: The appeal concerned the striking out of the writ of summons.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Energy

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Striking out
  • Recusal
  • Abuse of process
  • Offer to Settle
  • Legal fees

15.2 Keywords

  • Striking out
  • Bias
  • Civil Procedure
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Procedure75
Abuse of Process30
Recusal30
Contract Law30
Constitutional Law25
Costs20
Summary Judgement20
Legal fees20
Estoppel15

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Constitutional Law