Hyflux Ltd v Lum Ooi Lin & KPMG: Application for Joint Trial of Suits Regarding Misstated Financial Statements
The High Court of Singapore heard an application by Ms. Lum Ooi Lin, the defendant in HC/S 267/2022, for a joint trial of HC/S 267/2022 and HC/S 268/2022, involving Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and numerous other plaintiffs against Ms. Lum and KPMG LLP, respectively. The suits concern alleged misstatements in Hyflux's financial statements. The court, presided over by Goh Yihan J, allowed the application for a joint trial, finding that common questions of law and fact existed and that a joint trial would save costs, time, and effort.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application allowed, ordering a joint trial of the suits.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application for a joint trial of two suits concerning alleged misstatements in Hyflux's financial statements. The court allowed the application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Kenneth Tan SC, Ng Ka Luon Eddee, Leong Qianyu, Teo Jin Yun Germaine, Gitta Priska Adelya, Lu Yanrong Elycia, Clarise Chew Shu-Min | ||
| Hydrochem (S) Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Kenneth Tan SC, Ng Ka Luon Eddee, Leong Qianyu, Teo Jin Yun Germaine, Gitta Priska Adelya, Lu Yanrong Elycia, Clarise Chew Shu-Min | ||
| Bendemeer Infrastructure Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Eflux Singapore Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Asset Management Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Capital (Singapore) Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Innovation Centre Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux International Engineering Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Management and Consultancy Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Sip Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Water Trust Management Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Menaspring Utility (S) Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Menaspring Utility (Tlemcen) Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Newspring Utility Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Tuasone Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Tuaspring Pte Ltd (under receivership) | Plaintiff | Corporation | Kenneth Tan SC, Ng Ka Luon Eddee, Leong Qianyu, Teo Jin Yun Germaine, Gitta Priska Adelya, Lu Yanrong Elycia, Clarise Chew Shu-Min | ||
| Hyflux Engineering Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Membrane Manufacturing (S) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hydrochem Membrane Products (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Consumer Products Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Energy Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux International Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Utility (Oman) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Tuasone Environmental Engineering Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| H J Newspring Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Utility (TJ) Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Sinospring Utility Ltd (in liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Spring China Utility Ltd (in liquidation) | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Qurayyat Desalination SAOC | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Engineering (India) Private Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Filtech (Shanghai) Co, Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Sinolac (Huludao) Biotech Co, Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Eflux (Taizhou) Company Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Tianjin Dagang Newspring Co, Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Hi-Tech Product (Yangzhou) Co, Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Hyflux Unitech (Shanghai) Co, Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | |||
| Cosimo Borrelli | Plaintiff | Individual | Kenneth Tan SC, Ng Ka Luon Eddee, Leong Qianyu, Teo Jin Yun Germaine, Gitta Priska Adelya, Lu Yanrong Elycia, Clarise Chew Shu-Min | ||
| Lum Ooi Lin | Defendant | Individual | Application for joint trial allowed | Neutral | Jaikanth Shankar, Rajvinder Singh Chahal, Sheiffa Safi Shirbeeni, Shilpa Krishnan |
| KPMG LLP | Defendant | Partnership | Application for joint trial allowed | Neutral | Thio Shen Yi SC, Tan May Lian Felicia, Kevin Elbert, Chin Yen Bing Arthur, Joshua Phang Shih Ern, Juliana Lake, Tay Zhuo Yan Isaac, Ng Qiheng Glenn |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kenneth Tan SC | Kenneth Tan Partnership |
| Ng Ka Luon Eddee | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
| Leong Qianyu | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
| Teo Jin Yun Germaine | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
| Gitta Priska Adelya | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
| Lu Yanrong Elycia | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
| Clarise Chew Shu-Min | Tan Kok Quan Partnership |
| Jaikanth Shankar | Davinder Singh Chambers LLC |
| Rajvinder Singh Chahal | Davinder Singh Chambers LLC |
| Sheiffa Safi Shirbeeni | Davinder Singh Chambers LLC |
| Shilpa Krishnan | Davinder Singh Chambers LLC |
| Thio Shen Yi SC | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Tan May Lian Felicia | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Kevin Elbert | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Chin Yen Bing Arthur | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Joshua Phang Shih Ern | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Juliana Lake | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Tay Zhuo Yan Isaac | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Ng Qiheng Glenn | TSMP Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Ms. Lum is the defendant in HC/S 267/2022, and KPMG is the defendant in HC/S 268/2022.
- The plaintiffs in both suits allege misstatements in Hyflux's financial statements for the financial years ended 31 December 2011 to 2017.
- The alleged misstatements relate to the Tuaspring project.
- Ms. Lum applied for an order that the suits be fixed before the same Judge and be heard or tried at the same time.
- KPMG agreed with Ms. Lum's position.
- The plaintiffs opposed the application.
5. Formal Citations
- Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and others v Lum Ooi Lin and another suit, Suit No 267 of 2022 (Summons No 56 of 2024) and Suit No 268 of 2022 (Summons No 144 of 2024), [2024] SGHC 84
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Suit No 267 of 2022 filed | |
| Suit No 268 of 2022 filed | |
| Ms. Lum's solicitors wrote to the plaintiffs' and KPMG's solicitors requesting agreement to a joint trial. | |
| Plaintiffs' solicitors replied, disagreeing to a joint trial. | |
| 3rd Affidavit of Lum Ooi Lin in HC/S 267/2022 filed | |
| 2nd Affidavit of Cosimo Borrelli in Suit 268 filed | |
| Ms Lum Ooi Lin’s Written Submissions in HC/S 267/2022 filed | |
| KPMG’s Written Submissions in HC/S 268/2022 filed | |
| Plaintiffs’ Written Submissions in HC/S 267/2022 in response to HC/SUM 56/2024 and HC/SUM 144/2024 filed | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Joint Trial
- Outcome: The court allowed the application for a joint trial of the suits.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Compensation
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of common law, equitable, and statutory duties
- Wrongful trading
- Breach of duty to exercise reasonable skill and care in carrying out audit work
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Audit Negligence
11. Industries
- Water Treatment
- Energy
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V V Technology Pte Ltd v Twitter, Inc | High Court | Yes | [2023] 5 SLR 513 | Singapore | Cited for the point that terminological precision should be carefully maintained in legal submissions. |
| Salmizan bin Abdullah v Crapper, Ian Anthony | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 75 | Singapore | Cited for the point that terminological precision should be carefully maintained in legal submissions. |
| Ho Chee Kian v Ho Kwek Sin | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 192 | Singapore | Cited for the point that terminological precision should be carefully maintained in legal submissions. |
| Paterson v Stewart Title Guaranty Company | Ontario Superior Court of Justice | Yes | [2020] ONSC 4609 | Canada | Cited for the distinction between consolidation and a joint hearing. |
| Wood v Farr Ford Ltd | Ontario Superior Court of Justice | Yes | [2008] OJ No 4092 | Canada | Cited within Paterson v Stewart Title Guaranty Company for the distinction between consolidation and a joint hearing. |
| Convoy Collateral Ltd v Cho Kwai Chee | Hong Kong Court of First Instance | Yes | [2022] HKFCI 3406 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that different considerations may apply depending on whether an order for consolidation or a joint trial is sought. |
| Yeo Su Lan (alias Yang Shulan) v Hong Thomas and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 44 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage analytical framework for applications under O 4 r 1(1) of the Rules of Court 2014. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another and other actions | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 141 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a joint trial should save costs, time and effort and for reasons of convenience. |
| Federal Land Development Authority and Anor v Tan Sri Hj Mohd Isa bin Dato’ Hj Abdul Samad and Ors | Malaysian High Court | Yes | [2022] 7 MLJ 883 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the effect of an order under O 4 r 1(1) on one of the causes or matters is a relevant consideration. |
| Spargos Mining NL v Michael John Fuller | Supreme Court of Western Australia | Yes | [1998] WASC 361 | Australia | Cited for the broad proposition that an application for an order under O 4 r 1(1) would be premature if the applicants had not identified the names and numbers of any suggested common witnesses between the two actions, and the nature and volume of any common documents. |
| Logtenberg v ING Insurance Co | Ontario Superior Court of Justice | Yes | [2008] OJ No 3394 | Canada | Cited for the factors to be considered in assessing whether a joint hearing will save costs, time, and effort, as well as promote convenience. |
| DFI Engineering Pte Ltd v Mo Mei Jen | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 431 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that consolidation will prevent an outcome that gives rise to inconsistent results. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2014 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
| Companies Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Joint trial
- Financial statements
- Misstatements
- Tuaspring project
- Consolidation
- Ancillary orders
15.2 Keywords
- Hyflux
- Lum Ooi Lin
- KPMG
- Joint trial
- Financial statements
- Misstatements
- Tuaspring
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Consolidation of Suits
- Financial Misstatements
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Insolvency Law
- Company Law
- Financial Reporting Standards