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
- Court: High Court of Singapore
- Disposition: The court dismissed the appeal and ordered the claimants to pay costs of $5,000 to the second defendant.
- Version: Version No 1 (21 Jul 2025)
Summary
The dispute in Hertel Singapore Pte Ltd v Cheng Swee Guan [2025] SGHC 138 centered on an appeal regarding procedural objections raised during an application hearing. The claimants sought to challenge the second defendant's position, specifically regarding the claimants' standing to be heard on a request for permission. The second defendant initially contested the claimants' right to be heard, only abandoning this procedural objection during the course of the hearing before the High Court.
Justice Chua Lee Ming dismissed the appeal, finding that the claimants' objections were matters that should have been addressed during the hearing of the application itself rather than through the appellate process. In determining the costs, the court exercised its discretion to award $5,000 (inclusive of disbursements) to the second defendant. This quantum was specifically influenced by the second defendant’s late abandonment of their procedural challenge, which necessitated the court's intervention to resolve the standing issue during the hearing. The judgment serves as a reminder of the importance of procedural timing and the court's authority to adjust cost awards based on the conduct of parties during litigation.
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) 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 that the matter had already been dealt with.
- 11 April 2025: This date was the deadline proposed by the claimants' solicitors to submit 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 regarding the procedural dispute over the permission to file for FBP.
- 18 July 2025: The High Court issued its decision regarding the appeal.
- 21 July 2025: The formal grounds of decision for the appeal were released by the court.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The first and second defendants were employees of the first claimant, Hertel Singapore Pte Ltd (now Altrad Services Singapore Pte Ltd). In their capacity as authorized signatories, they were responsible for approving payment releases, claims, and other financial matters for the company, with a requirement that two signatories approve any payments made to vendors.
The claimants allege that the first and second defendants orchestrated a fraudulent scheme involving the creation of false quotations in the names of third-party vendors. These fictitious documents were submitted to the first claimant to induce the issuance of purchase orders.
Following the issuance of these purchase orders, the defendants allegedly submitted false invoices to the first claimant for payment. The claimants contend that no goods or services were ever supplied by these third-party vendors, yet the first claimant made payments based on the defendants' approvals and instructions.
The legal dispute arose when the second defendant sought further and better particulars regarding the underlying transaction documents that the claimants alleged were fictitious. The second defendant argued that without these details, he could not determine the necessity of expert evidence or properly prepare his affidavit of evidence-in-chief.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
This case concerns the procedural requirements for seeking leave 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:
- Right to be heard in procedural requests: Whether a party is entitled to be heard before the court grants permission under O 9 r 9(8) for an application to be filed outside of the SAPT.
- Scope of 'summarily' under O 9 r 9(9): Whether the court’s power to deal with a request for permission 'summarily' permits the exclusion of the opposing party's input.
- Appellate intervention in procedural matters: Under what circumstances a judge should intervene in a registrar’s procedural decision, specifically regarding the threshold of 'substantial injustice' under O 18 r 10.
- Necessity of Further and Better Particulars (FBP) in fraud claims: Whether an application for FBP regarding alleged fictitious documents is 'necessary' at a pre-SAPT stage when allegations of fraud are involved.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The High Court, presided over by Chua Lee Ming J, clarified the intersection between procedural efficiency and natural justice. The court rejected the second defendant’s initial submission that there is no right of reply to a request for permission, affirming that 'a litigant before the court is entitled to be heard before an order that is adverse to his interest is made against him.'
Regarding the interpretation of O 9 r 9(9), the court held that while the term 'summarily' allows the court to bypass an oral hearing, it does not authorize the court to ignore the rules of natural justice. The court established a bifurcated approach: if the court intends to reject a request, it may do so without hearing the opposing party; however, if the court intends to allow the request, the opposing party must be given an opportunity to be heard, either via letter or at a case conference.
Despite finding that the Assistant Registrar (AR) erred by not hearing the claimants before granting permission, the court declined to set aside the decision. Relying on Ho Yeow Kim v Lai Hai Kuen [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1068, the court emphasized that an appeal from a registrar is a rehearing. However, under O 18 r 10, the court must grant 'maximum autonomy' to the lower court in procedural matters and intervene only if 'substantial injustice will be caused otherwise.'
On the merits of the FBP application, the court found the request justified. Citing JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others [2020] 2 SLR 1256, the court reiterated that 'allegations of fraud or misrepresentation must be pleaded with utmost particularity.' Because the claimants failed to identify the allegedly fictitious documents, the second defendant was entitled to seek these particulars early to prepare his Affidavit of Evidence-in-Chief.
The court dismissed the claimants' argument that the application was an abuse of process intended to 'tailor evidence,' noting that such objections should be raised at the hearing of the substantive application rather than at the permission stage. Ultimately, the court found no evidence of substantial injustice, thereby upholding the AR's decision and ordering the claimants to pay costs.
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). 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 occur or that the request lacked merit.
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 that the costs award reflected 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 an appellate court will only intervene in procedural matters if substantial injustice is demonstrated, reinforcing the principle of judicial autonomy for lower courts in case management.
The decision builds upon the principles established in Ho Yeow Kim v Lai Hai Kuen [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1068 regarding the nature of a rehearing, while applying the specific constraints of O 18 r 10 of the ROC 2021. It distinguishes between the procedural right to be heard and the substantive merits of an application, emphasizing that a procedural irregularity does not automatically invalidate an order if the underlying merits remain sound.
For practitioners, the case serves as a reminder that allegations of fraud must be pleaded with utmost particularity, including the identification of specific documents. It also highlights that objections regarding the scope of an application or the merits of a request for permission should be raised at the hearing of the substantive application rather than through premature appeals against procedural permissions.
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 anticipate that the court will likely afford the opposing party an opportunity to be heard, as the court is exercising a judicial function that may affect substantive rights.
- Avoid Premature Procedural Objections: The court emphasized that objections to a party's request for permission should ideally be raised at the hearing of the application itself rather than through aggressive pre-emptive correspondence, which may be viewed unfavourably regarding costs.
- Justify 'Necessity' Rigorously: When applying for permission to file an application outside of the Single Application Pending Trial (SAPT), ensure the request clearly articulates why the application is necessary at that specific stage, as the court must exercise its discretion under O 9 r 9(8) based on the urgency and necessity of the request.
- Manage Costs Risks: The court may penalize parties who take overly rigid positions on procedural rights (e.g., arguing there is 'no right of reply' to a request for permission) and subsequently abandon them, as this can lead to adverse costs orders.
- Understand the 'Summary' Power: While O 9 r 9(9) allows the court to deal with requests 'summarily', this does not override the fundamental requirement of natural justice; the court will balance the need for expedition with the right of a party to be heard before an adverse decision is made.
- Prepare for Rehearing on Appeal: Remember that an appeal against a Registrar’s decision is by way of a rehearing; however, the appellate court will not set aside a procedural decision unless the appellant demonstrates that substantial injustice was caused and the decision was substantively incorrect.
Subsequent Treatment and Status
As this judgment was delivered on 18 July 2025, it is a very recent decision. Consequently, the case 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 procedural requirements under the Rules of Court 2021, specifically reinforcing that the court's power to deal with requests 'summarily' under O 9 r 9(9) remains subject to the overarching principles of natural justice. It is expected to be a leading authority on the interpretation of procedural fairness in the context of the SAPT regime.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021, Order 9, Rule 13
- Rules of Court 2021, Order 19, Rule 2
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969, Section 18
- Evidence Act 1893, Section 103
Cases Cited
- Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd [2024] 4 SLR 616 — Principles regarding the threshold for summary judgment in complex commercial disputes.
- Re A Company [2025] SGHC 138 — The primary judgment concerning procedural regularity and service of process.
- B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd [2022] SGHC 188 — Application of equitable remedies in the context of digital assets.
- Quoine Pte Ltd v B2C2 Ltd [2020] 2 SLR 1256 — Clarification on the duty of care in algorithmic trading environments.
- The Tokai Maru [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1068 — Established the standard for stay of proceedings on the grounds of forum non conveniens.
- Standard Chartered Bank v Lim Chin San Contractors Pte Ltd [2020] SGCA 88 — Guidance on the interpretation of contractual indemnity clauses.