Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 208
- Title: Luo Li v Corpbond Holdings Pte Ltd and another (Chan Wing Hang, third party)
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Judges: Choo Han Teck J
- Date of Judgment: 21 October 2025
- Date Judgment Reserved: 13 October 2025
- Originating Claim No: 144 of 2023
- Registrar’s Appeal No: 154 of 2025
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Luo Li
- Defendants/Respondents: Corpbond Holdings Pte Ltd and another
- Third Party: Chan Wing Hang
- Procedural Posture: Appeal against dismissal of an application to strike out a third party notice and joint statement of claim
- Legal Area(s): Civil Procedure — Striking out
- Statutes Referenced: Rules of Court 2021 (Order 9 Rule 16)
- Cases Cited: Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649; “The Bunga Melati 5” [2012] 4 SLR 546
- Judgment Length: 6 pages, 1,549 words
Summary
Luo Li v Corpbond Holdings Pte Ltd and another (Chan Wing Hang, third party) [2025] SGHC 208 concerns a procedural dispute within an ongoing civil action: whether a third party claim should be struck out at an early stage. The third party, Chan Wing Hang (“Chan”), appealed against the Assistant Registrar’s dismissal of his application to strike out the third party notice and the joint statement of claim (“TP SOC”) brought by the defendants in the main action.
The High Court (Choo Han Teck J) dismissed the appeal. Applying the established “reasonable cause of action” test under Order 9 Rule 16 of the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2021”), the court held that the TP SOC disclosed a cause of action that had some chance of success when its allegations were taken at face value. The court emphasised that weaknesses in the pleaded case, including perceived inconsistencies relating to reliance, are matters for trial rather than grounds for striking out.
On the alternative “interest of justice” ground, the court reiterated that striking out is appropriate only where the claim is plainly or obviously unsustainable—either legally unsustainable or factually fanciful. The court found that the pleaded factual basis was not contradicted “clear[ly] beyond question” by documentary material, and that the existence of relevant conversations and alleged relationships provided at least some basis for the claim. Costs were reserved to the trial judge.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The litigation arises from a loss of S$1,800,000. Luo Li (“Luo Li”), the claimant in Originating Claim No 144 of 2023 (“OC 144”), sued Corpbond Holdings Pte Ltd and Niu Liming (the “defendants”) for, among other things, breach of contract. Luo Li’s pleaded narrative is that she paid S$1,800,000 for shares in a company called New Star. She further alleged that New Star then lent that sum to NutryFarm.
At the heart of Luo Li’s claim was an alleged extension of time for repayment of the S$1,800,000. Luo Li asserted that the defendants had no right or authority to extend the repayment timeline. Although the judge described the overall claim as “convoluted” and suggested that the solicitors had difficulty narrating a coherent story, the “salient aspect” was the alleged lack of authority to grant an extension.
In response, the defendants sought recourse against Chan Wing Hang by issuing a third party notice dated 24 January 2025 (“TP Notice”) and filing a joint statement of claim dated 6 May 2025 (“TP SOC”). The defendants’ third party claim was framed in terms of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. Their case was that Chan had misrepresented to them that he was Luo Li’s agent and that he had authority to authorise the extension of the loan repayment.
According to the defendants, if they were found liable to Luo Li in the main action, they should be compensated by Chan because Chan’s misrepresentations induced them to act (or to accept the extension) on the basis of Chan’s asserted agency and authority. Chan, in turn, applied to strike out the TP Notice and TP SOC. The Assistant Registrar dismissed that application, and Chan appealed to the High Court.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The first key issue was whether the third party claim disclosed a “reasonable cause of action” under Order 9 Rule 16 of the ROC 2021. Chan argued that the TP SOC failed to plead the elements necessary for both fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation—particularly false representation of fact and reliance. He also contended that the particulars provided were insufficient to establish these elements.
The second issue was whether, even if the claim was not strictly deficient as a matter of pleading, it should nonetheless be struck out because it was “in the interests of justice” to do so. This required the court to consider whether the claim was plainly or obviously unsustainable, including whether it was factually “fanciful” in the sense that the pleaded factual basis was contradicted by documents or other material beyond question.
Underlying both issues was the broader procedural principle: striking out is an exceptional remedy. The court had to decide whether Chan’s objections were truly about legal insufficiency or factual impossibility, or whether they were instead criticisms of evidential strength and trial strategy—matters better left for determination at trial.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by identifying the governing procedural framework. Under Order 9 Rule 16 of the ROC 2021, a claim against a third party may be struck out if it discloses no reasonable cause of action. The judge then relied on the Court of Appeal’s interpretation of the “reasonable cause of action” concept in Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649. In turn, Gabriel Peter adopted the guiding principle from Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association [1970] 1 All ER 1094: a reasonable cause of action is one that has “some chance of success” when only the allegations in the pleadings are considered.
Crucially, the judge reiterated that the mere fact that a case is weak, or unlikely to succeed, is not a ground for striking out. The court also drew a distinction between cases that are defective for want of particulars and cases that are defective because they disclose no cause of action. Where the complaint is essentially that the pleading lacks particulars to which the defendant is entitled, the proper route is an application for particulars (under the relevant procedural provisions), not striking out.
Applying these principles, Choo Han Teck J held that the TP SOC was sufficiently detailed to found a claim for negligent and fraudulent misrepresentation. Chan’s objections focused on the weakness of the defendants’ case and the sufficiency of the pleaded particulars. The judge treated those objections as going to the merits rather than to whether a cause of action was disclosed. In other words, the court was not persuaded that the pleadings failed to raise “some question fit to be decided at the trial”.
The judge addressed Chan’s argument that the defendants had not properly pleaded reliance, including an alleged contradiction in their positions. The court noted that the defendants appeared to claim, on one hand, that they did not require consent from Luo Li, but on the other hand, that they relied on Chan’s representations. Chan argued that this inconsistency undermined the reliance element. The judge’s response was that such issues may not be helpful to the defendants, but they are matters for explanation and testing at trial. At the striking out stage, the court’s focus is whether the allegations, if assumed to be true, disclose a cause of action and raise questions for trial.
Having dismissed the “no reasonable cause of action” ground, the court turned to the “interest of justice” ground. Order 9 Rule 16 also permits striking out where it is in the interests of justice. The court relied on The “Bunga Melati 5” [2012] 4 SLR 546, where the Court of Appeal described the circumstances in which this power should be exercised: only when an action is “plainly or obviously” unsustainable. The court explained that this includes both legally unsustainable claims (where, even if all facts are proved, the claimant cannot obtain the remedy) and factually unsustainable claims (where the factual basis is fanciful because it is contradicted by documents or other material on which it is based).
Chan’s counsel argued that the TP SOC was factually unsustainable because the particulars did not explicitly reference a conversation that purportedly mentioned the loan agreement in dispute. The judge disagreed that this omission was enough to show that the claim was entirely without substance. The judge observed that the absence of explicit reference may mean the evidence is insufficient to support the complaint, but it does not mean the claim is “entirely without substance” or “fanciful”.
Further, the judge considered the broader context: based on the TP SOC and Chan’s own evidence, there was an exchange of information and views on the loan transaction involving Luo Li. The conversations also allegedly involved a relationship between Chan and Luo Li. The judge found that these allegations were not directly contradicted by any of the documents produced, and certainly not contradicted “clear[ly] beyond question”. As a result, the conversation formed some basis for the claim, and the appropriate forum to evaluate evidence, probabilities, and defences was the trial judge.
In short, the court treated Chan’s arguments as evidential and merits-based criticisms rather than as demonstrations that the claim was legally or factually impossible. The court therefore dismissed the appeal on both grounds.
What Was the Outcome?
The High Court dismissed Chan Wing Hang’s appeal. The Assistant Registrar’s decision to refuse striking out the TP Notice and TP SOC was upheld.
Costs were reserved to the trial judge, meaning the parties would proceed to trial (or further procedural steps) with the third party claim intact, and the question of costs would be determined later in light of the final outcome.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is a useful reminder of the high threshold for striking out pleadings in Singapore civil procedure. The court’s application of the “reasonable cause of action” test underscores that pleadings should not be struck out merely because they appear weak, internally awkward, or likely to face difficulties at trial. So long as the pleading discloses a cause of action with “some chance of success” and raises questions fit for trial, the matter should generally proceed.
For practitioners, the case also illustrates the proper use of striking out versus applications for further and better particulars. Where the true complaint is that the other side has not provided sufficient particulars to understand the case, the court may expect the moving party to seek particulars rather than attempt to terminate the claim. This approach promotes procedural fairness and avoids premature adjudication of evidential disputes.
Finally, the decision clarifies the “interest of justice” pathway. The court’s reliance on The “Bunga Melati 5” confirms that factually unsustainable claims must be contradicted by documents or other material to a degree that makes the pleaded case fanciful beyond question. In Luo Li v Corpbond Holdings, the judge found that the existence of relevant conversations and alleged relationships provided at least some basis, even if the evidence might ultimately be insufficient. This reinforces that striking out is not a substitute for trial assessment of credibility, reliance, and the weight of evidence.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court 2021 (ROC 2021), Order 9 Rule 16
Cases Cited
- Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649
- “The Bunga Melati 5” [2012] 4 SLR 546
- Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association [1970] 1 All ER 1094
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHC 208 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.