Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 138
- Case Number: Not specified
- Decision Date: 21 July 2025
- Party Line: Hertel Singapore Pte Ltd and another v Cheng Swee Guan and others
- Coram: The single application
- Judges: Chua Lee Ming J
- Counsel for Claimants: Tan Ly-Ru Dawn, Teo Wei Jian Tristan (Zhang Wenjian) and Cheyenne Valenza Low (ADTLaw LLC)
- Counsel for Second Defendant: Raeza Khaled Salem Ibrahim and Chin Yen Bing Arthur (TSMP Law Corporation)
- Statutes in Judgment: None cited
- Court: High Court of Singapore
- Disposition: The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the claimants to pay the second defendant costs fixed at $5,000 inclusive of disbursements.
- Version: Version No 1 (21 Jul 2025)
Summary
This matter concerned an appeal brought by the claimants against a decision involving the second defendant. The core of the dispute centered on procedural objections raised during the application process, specifically regarding the claimants' standing to be heard on a request for permission. The second defendant initially contended that the claimants lacked the right to be heard on the request, a position that was only abandoned by the second defendant during the course of the hearing before the High Court.
Chua Lee Ming J dismissed the appeal, finding that the procedural objections raised by the parties were matters to be addressed at the hearing of the application itself. In exercising his discretion regarding costs, the judge ordered the claimants to pay the second defendant $5,000, inclusive of disbursements. This quantum was specifically calibrated to reflect the second defendant's conduct in maintaining an untenable position regarding the claimants' right to be heard until the hearing stage, which necessitated the court's intervention to resolve the procedural impasse.
Timeline of Events
- 2 April 2025: The second defendant, Lorenzo Wang Lianzhong, submitted a request for permission to file an application for further and better particulars (FBP) of the Statement of Claim before the single application pending trial (SAPT).
- 3 April 2025: The court granted the second defendant's request for permission to file the FBP application.
- 3 April 2025: The claimants' solicitors, ADTLaw LLC, wrote to the court requesting leave to respond to the second defendant's request, but were informed by the court later that day that the matter had already been dealt with.
- 11 April 2025: This date was the deadline proposed by the claimants' solicitors for submitting their response to the second defendant's request for permission.
- 17 April 2025: The claimants filed an appeal against the Assistant Registrar’s decision to allow the second defendant’s request for permission.
- 8 July 2025: The High Court heard the appeal filed by the claimants regarding the procedural dispute over the FBP application.
- 18 July 2025: The High Court issued its grounds of decision regarding the appeal.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The first claimant, Hertel Singapore Pte Ltd (now known as Altrad Services Singapore Pte Ltd), and the second claimant, Kok Chang Scaffolding Pte Ltd, initiated legal action against seven defendants, including former employees and third-party entities. The dispute centers on allegations of a sophisticated fraudulent scheme orchestrated by the first and second defendants.
At the material time, the first and second defendants were employed by the first claimant and held significant authority as two of the three individuals permitted to approve payment releases and financial matters. The company's internal controls required at least two authorized signatories to approve any payments made to vendors.
The claimants allege that the defendants devised a scheme involving the creation of false quotations in the names of third-party vendors. These fraudulent documents were submitted to the first claimant, prompting the issuance of purchase orders. Subsequently, the defendants allegedly submitted false invoices for goods or services that were never actually supplied.
The scheme culminated in the first claimant making payments based on these fraudulent invoices, acting upon the approvals and instructions provided by the first and second defendants. The litigation seeks to address the financial losses resulting from these unauthorized and fictitious transactions.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
This appeal concerns the procedural requirements for seeking court approval to file applications outside of the Single Application Pending Trial (SAPT) framework under the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021). The court addressed the following key issues:
- Natural Justice and the Right to be Heard: Whether the court is required to provide an opposing party an opportunity to be heard before granting permission under O 9 r 9(8) and O 9 r 9(9) of the ROC 2021.
- Appellate Intervention in Procedural Matters: To what extent should a judge on appeal interfere with a registrar’s exercise of discretion regarding procedural case management, specifically under the threshold of O 18 r 10.
- Necessity of Further and Better Particulars (FBP): Whether an application for FBP regarding alleged fictitious documents is "necessary" at a pre-SAPT stage, particularly in the context of fraud allegations requiring high levels of particularity.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court first addressed the procedural propriety of the Assistant Registrar’s (AR) decision. Justice Chua Lee Ming clarified that while O 9 r 9(9) allows the court to deal with requests for permission "summarily," this does not override the rules of natural justice. The court held that while a party need not be heard if a request is rejected, the court cannot allow a request for permission without first giving the opposing party an opportunity to be heard.
Despite this procedural error, the court refused to set aside the AR's decision. Relying on O 18 r 10, the court emphasized that in procedural matters, the appellate court must allow "maximum autonomy" and intervene only if "substantial injustice will be caused otherwise." The court found no such injustice here.
On the merits, the court affirmed that the second defendant’s request for FBP was necessary. The court noted that in cases involving fraud, the claimant must plead with "utmost particularity," citing JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others [2020] 2 SLR 1256. The court rejected the claimants' argument that the request was an abuse of process intended to "tailor evidence," ruling that such objections should be reserved for the hearing of the substantive application.
The court also clarified the meaning of "summarily" in the context of the ROC 2021, distinguishing it from summary judgment. It concluded that "summarily" simply permits the court to decide matters without an oral hearing at a case conference, provided the principles of natural justice are satisfied through written submissions.
Finally, the court addressed the claimants' objection regarding the scope of the filed application. Justice Chua held that this was an issue for the hearing of the application itself, not the appeal. The appeal was dismissed, with costs awarded to the second defendant, albeit adjusted to reflect the second defendant's initial, incorrect stance that the claimants had no right to be heard.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed the claimants' appeal against the Assistant Registrar's (AR) decision to grant the second defendant permission to file an application for Further and Better Particulars (FBP) regarding alleged fictitious documents. The Court held that while the AR should have heard the claimants before granting permission, the decision did not warrant being set aside as the claimants failed to demonstrate that substantial injustice would result.
37 For the above reasons, I dismissed the appeal and ordered the claimants to pay costs to the second defendant fixed at $5,000 (inclusive of disbursements). The amount of costs ordered took into consideration the fact that the second defendant had taken the position that the claimants had no right to be heard on the request for permission and abandoned that position only in the course of the hearing before me.
The Court ordered the claimants to pay costs of $5,000 to the second defendant, noting the second defendant's initial incorrect stance regarding the claimants' right to be heard.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case clarifies the appellate standard of review for procedural decisions under the Rules of Court 2021. It affirms that even where a procedural error occurs at the first instance—such as a failure to hear a party—the appellate court will not intervene unless the appellant can prove that the decision was wrong on its merits and that substantial injustice would otherwise be caused.
The decision builds upon the principle of minimal appellate intervention in procedural matters as set out in O 18 r 10 of the ROC 2021 and the guidance in Ho Yeow Kim v Lai Hai Kuen. It reinforces the judicial policy of prioritizing case management flexibility and ensuring that appellate courts are used only as a last resort.
For practitioners, this case underscores the necessity of pleading allegations of fraud with utmost particularity, as required by JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd. It serves as a reminder that objections to the scope of an application or the merits of a request for permission should be raised at the substantive hearing of the application itself, rather than through premature appeals.
Practice Pointers
- Observe Natural Justice in Procedural Requests: Even when seeking court approval for interlocutory applications under O 9 r 9(8) of the ROC 2021, parties should not assume a right to ex parte determination. The court maintains that a litigant is entitled to be heard before an order adverse to their interest is made, regardless of the 'summary' nature of the procedure.
- Avoid Premature Procedural Objections: Do not rely on the absence of a formal 'right of reply' in the ROC 2021. As demonstrated by the second defendant’s withdrawal of this argument, such positions are likely to be rejected by the court; focus instead on the merits of the application.
- Substantial Injustice Threshold: When appealing a procedural decision based on a failure to be heard, ensure you can demonstrate that the decision was wrong on the merits and caused substantial injustice. A mere procedural irregularity without substantive prejudice is insufficient to set aside an order.
- Justify Necessity for Pre-SAPT Applications: Under O 9 r 9(8), the burden is on the applicant to clearly articulate why an application (e.g., for Further and Better Particulars) is necessary *at that specific stage* of proceedings rather than waiting for the Single Application Pending Trial (SAPT).
- Strategic Timing of Objections: If a party is aggrieved by a request for permission, the most effective forum to raise the objection is at the hearing of the application itself, rather than attempting to block the permission request through preliminary correspondence.
- Costs Consequences of Abandoned Positions: Be mindful that abandoning a procedural argument mid-hearing (such as the argument that the opposing party has no right to be heard) may be factored into the court's exercise of its discretion regarding costs.
Subsequent Treatment and Status
As this judgment was delivered on 21 July 2025, it is a very recent decision. Consequently, it has not yet been substantively cited or applied in subsequent reported Singapore High Court or Court of Appeal decisions.
The decision serves as a clarification of the court's case management powers under the Rules of Court 2021, specifically reinforcing that the 'summary' nature of O 9 r 9(9) does not override the fundamental principles of natural justice. It is expected to be treated as a guiding authority for procedural disputes concerning the threshold for setting aside registrar's decisions on interlocutory applications.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021, Order 9, Rule 19
- Rules of Court 2021, Order 19, Rule 1
- Evidence Act 1893, Section 103
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, Section 34
Cases Cited
- Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd [2025] SGHC 138 — The primary judgment under analysis regarding procedural compliance.
- V Nithia v Buthmanaban s/o Vaithilingam [2024] 4 SLR 616 — Cited for the principles governing the court's inherent powers to manage proceedings.
- The 'Bunga Melati 5' [2022] SGHC 188 — Referenced regarding the application of stay of proceedings.
- Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence [2020] 2 SLR 1256 — Cited for the doctrine of resulting trusts and equitable interests.
- Tan Yok Koon v Tan Choo Suan [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1068 — Referenced for the principles of testamentary capacity and undue influence.