Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 138
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore
- Date: 2025-07-18
- Judges: Chua Lee Ming J
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Hertel Singapore Pte Ltd (now known as Altrad Services Singapore Pte Ltd) and another
- Defendant/Respondent: Cheng Swee Guan and others
- Legal Areas: Civil Procedure — Rules of court
- Statutes Referenced: Rules of Court 2021
- Cases Cited: [2022] SGHC 188, [2025] SGHC 138
- Judgment Length: 15 pages, 3,376 words
Summary
This case involved an appeal by the claimants, Hertel Singapore Pte Ltd (now known as Altrad Services Singapore Pte Ltd) and Kok Chang Scaffolding Pte Ltd, against the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant permission to the second defendant, Lorenzo Wang Lianzhong, to file an application for further and better particulars (FBP) of the Statement of Claim before the single application pending trial (SAPT) was made. The key issues were whether the claimants were entitled to be heard on the second defendant's request for permission, and whether the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant the request was appropriate. The High Court ultimately held that the claimants should have been given an opportunity to be heard, and that the Assistant Registrar's decision could not stand.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The first and second defendants were employed by the first claimant and were two of three authorized signatories who were authorized to approve payment releases, claims, and all financial matters. The claimants claimed that the first and second defendants devised a fraudulent scheme involving the creation and submission of false quotations and invoices to the first claimant, which then made payments on these false invoices pursuant to the defendants' approvals.
On 2 April 2025, the second defendant's solicitors requested permission to file an application for FBP of the claimants' Statement of Claim, particularly the underlying transaction documents that the claimants alleged were fictitious. The reasons given were that without the documents being identified, the second defendant could not address basic case matters, and FBP were required before the SAPT to determine the scope of discovery, prepare the affidavit of evidence-in-chief, and identify witnesses.
On 3 April 2025, the court informed the second defendant's solicitors that the request for permission was allowed. On the same day, the claimants' solicitors wrote to the court requesting leave to submit the claimants' response by 11 April 2025, but the court replied that the claimants were "not in a position to respond" and that the request had been "dealt with".
On 17 April 2025, the claimants filed the present appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision to allow the second defendant's request for permission.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The key legal issues in this case were:
- Whether the claimants were entitled to be heard on the second defendant's request for permission to file an application for FBP before the SAPT.
- Whether the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant the second defendant's request for permission was appropriate.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court first examined the relevant provisions of the Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021). Order 9 Rule 9(7) provides that no application may be taken out by any party at any time other than as directed at the case conference (i.e., in an SAPT) or with the court's approval, except for certain applications. An application for FBP does not fall within the exceptions, so it cannot be taken out on its own unless directed by the court or with the court's approval.
Order 9 Rule 9(8) requires the court's approval to be sought by letter setting out the essence of the intended application and the reasons why it is necessary at that stage of the proceedings. Order 9 Rule 9(9) then provides that the court may deal with the request "summarily" or fix a case conference to deal with the matter.
The court rejected the second defendant's argument that there is no right of reply to a request for permission, stating that the right to be heard is a rule of natural justice. The court must observe the rules of natural justice even when dealing with the request for permission summarily under Rule 9(9).
The court explained that under Rule 9(9), if the court is not satisfied that the intended application is necessary at that stage, it may reject the request summarily without hearing the opposing party. However, the court cannot allow the request without giving the opposing party an opportunity to be heard, either by way of letter or at an oral hearing.
What Was the Outcome?
The court held that the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant the second defendant's request for permission could not stand, as the claimants were not provided an opportunity to be heard on the request. The court therefore allowed the claimants' appeal and set aside the Assistant Registrar's decision.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case provides important guidance on the procedure for seeking the court's permission to file applications outside of the SAPT under the Rules of Court 2021. It clarifies that the court must observe the rules of natural justice in dealing with such requests, which means giving the opposing party an opportunity to be heard before granting the request.
The case emphasizes that the court's power to deal with the request "summarily" under Rule 9(9) does not mean the court can simply grant the request without hearing the opposing party. This is a significant procedural safeguard that protects the rights of litigants and ensures a fair process.
The judgment also sheds light on the court's interpretation of the term "summarily" in the context of the Rules of Court 2021. The court drew parallels to how the term has been used in other rules, such as in the context of summary judgment and judgment on admissions. This analysis provides helpful guidance on the scope of the court's powers when dealing with requests in a summary manner.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021
Cases Cited
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHC 138 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.