SBS Holdings Inc v Anant Kumar Choudary: Security for Costs Application
In SBS Holdings, Inc v Anant Kumar Choudary and others, the General Division of the High Court heard an application by Ms. Shalini Choudary for security for costs against SBS Holdings Inc, a Japanese company, in relation to a trial concerning the beneficial ownership of shares in A2S Logistics Pte Ltd. The court dismissed the application, finding that Ms. Choudary would not face difficulty in recovering costs from SBS, given its financial standing and connections to Singapore.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Security for costs application. The court dismissed the application, finding that the applicant would not face difficulty recovering costs.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SBS Holdings, Inc | Claimant | Corporation | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Anant Kumar Choudary | Defendant | Individual | |||
| Vivek Shukla | Defendant | Individual | |||
| Pravin Chand Rai | Defendant | Individual | |||
| SBS Transpole Logistics Pte Ltd (in liquidation) | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| A2S Logistics Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| Shalini Choudary | Respondent | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Perry Peh | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Ms. Choudary sought security for costs against SBS Holdings Inc, a company registered in Japan.
- The trial concerns whether shares of A2S Singapore held by Ms. Choudary are beneficially owned by her husband, Mr. Anant Kumar Choudary.
- SBS sought the sale and seizure of Ms. Choudary’s shares to enforce a judgment against Mr. Choudary.
- SBS is a company listed on the Tokyo Stock Exchange with strong financial standing.
- SBS has substantial assets within Singapore, including shares in SBS Logistics Pte Ltd.
- The claims against Mr Choudary were dismissed, and the arbitral tribunal ordered the Arbitration Claimants to pay to SBS various sums.
- SBS applied for an enforcement order for the seizure and sale of all shares in A2S Singapore which records from the Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority show are registered in Ms Choudary’s sole name.
5. Formal Citations
- SBS Holdings, Inc v Anant Kumar Choudary and others, Originating Application No 435 of 2023 (Summons No 2238 of 2024), [2024] SGHCR 11
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Arbitration commenced against SBS. | |
| Judgment obtained in terms of the Award in HC/JUD 233/2023. | |
| SBS commenced OA 435 to enforce the award. | |
| Mr Choudary transferred his 50% shareholding to Ms Choudary. | |
| Shares seized by the Sheriff. | |
| Ms Choudary and A2S Singapore filed Notices of Objection. | |
| Registrar’s Case Conference held. | |
| SBS filed its Statement of Claim. | |
| Court gave further directions for the production of documents and requests for further and better particulars. | |
| Trial Defendants filed their respective Defences. | |
| Ms Choudary’s solicitors made a request for SFC to SBS’s solicitors. | |
| SBS’s solicitors refused the request for SFC. | |
| Notes of Arguments. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Security for Costs
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for security for costs.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Security for Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Logistics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SIC College of Business and Technology Pte Ltd v Yeo Poh Siah and others | High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 118 | Singapore | Cited regarding the characterization of a defendant forced into litigation at the election of someone else against adverse costs consequences of that litigation. |
| SW Trustees Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and another v Teodros Ashenafi Tesemma and others (Teodros Ashenafi Tesemma, third party) | High Court | Yes | [2023] 5 SLR 1484 | Singapore | Cited regarding the characterization of a defendant forced into litigation at the election of someone else against adverse costs consequences of that litigation. |
| Cova Group Holdings Ltd v Advanced Submarine Networks Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 178 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage framework in considering whether security for costs should be ordered. |
| Tjong Very Sumito and others v Chan Sing En and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 580 | Singapore | Cited for the public policy of balancing access to the courts for certain high-risk categories of claimants against the need to ensure defendants get their costs if they prevail in the litigation. |
| Ooi Ching Ling Shirley v Just Gems Inc | High Court | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR(R) 738 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of security for costs to guard against the delay or expense that might arise where the defendant seeks to enforce its costs orders against the foreign claimant. |
| Logue v Hansen Technologies Ltd | Federal Court of Australia | Yes | [2003] FCA 81 | Australia | Cited for the purpose of security for costs to guard against the delay or expense that might arise where the defendant seeks to enforce its costs orders against the foreign claimant. |
| Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 427 | Singapore | Cited for the court having complete discretion as to whether to order security for costs, after considering all the relevant circumstances. |
| Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | High Court | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the relevance of a foreign claimant’s financial standing to the issue of whether security for costs should be ordered. |
| Zhong Da Chemical Development Co Ltd v Lanco Industries Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 1017 | Singapore | Cited regarding the impact of factors going toward the access to justice and procedural fairness rationales on the weight which the earlier factors relating to the protective rationale bear in the analysis of whether it is just for security for costs to be ordered. |
| L & M Concrete Specialists Pte Ltd v United Eng Contractors Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 208 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court exercising its discretion against granting security for costs where it is satisfied that the company’s claim is bona fide and has a reasonable prospect of success, and that the application for security for costs had been taken out in bad faith. |
| Hoogland Hendricus Antonius v Gino L Lin and another | High Court | Yes | [2008] HKCU 826 | Hong Kong | Cited for the court taking a common-sense approach and looking to the realities of the case in determining if the defendant would face difficulties in recovering its costs from the claimant. |
| Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v Puay Kim Seng and another | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited regarding the claimant’s financial standing being viewed as relevant in connection with the access to justice rationale. |
| Senda International Capital Ltd v Kiri Industries Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 96 | Singapore | Cited regarding the legal burden of demonstrating ease of enforcement ought also to lie on the claimant. |
| De Bry v Fitzgerald and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1990] 1 WLR 552 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the legal burden of demonstrating ease of enforcement ought also to lie on the claimant. |
| Transpac Investments Ltd v TIH Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC(I) 12 | Singapore | Cited regarding the legal burden of demonstrating ease of enforcement ought also to lie on the claimant. |
| Michael Wilson & Partners Ltd v Nicholls (No 6) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] ACTCA 41 | Australian Capital Territory | Cited regarding a judgment debt not being a fixed and permanent asset available to satisfy costs that the applicant for security for costs might come to obtain. |
| Lao Holdings NV v Government of the Lao People’s Democratic Republic and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] 4 SLR 77 | Singapore | Cited regarding the norm in civil procedure is for the claimant and defendant to equally bear the risk of litigation costs. |
| Omar Ali bin Mohd and others v Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdulkadir Alhadad and others | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 407 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court having regard to the circumstances in which a defendant came to be sued by a claimant, in deciding whether security for costs should be ordered. |
| Xiang Da Marine Pte Ltd (in creditors’ voluntary liquidation) and another v Zhang Xianming and others | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHCR 15 | Singapore | Cited regarding a defendant can only be expected to apply for security for costs when it comes to possess the relevant information on which it may assess its likely costs exposure for the stage of proceeding for which security for costs is sought. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 9 rule 12(1)(a) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 48 rule 6(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
| Order 22 r 2(2)(a) of the ROC 2021 |
| Order 47 r 6(1) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| International Arbitration Act 1994 | Singapore |
| Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act 2018 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Security for costs
- Beneficial ownership
- Enforcement order
- Shares
- Financial standing
- Assets
- Jurisdiction
- Trial
- Costs order
15.2 Keywords
- Security for costs
- Singapore
- Civil Procedure
- High Court
- Shares
- Beneficial Ownership
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Security for Costs | 95 |
| Costs | 90 |
| Civil Practice | 60 |
| Civil Litigation | 60 |
| Jurisdiction | 50 |
| International Arbitration | 40 |
| Arbitration | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Security for Costs