Case Details
- Citation: [2021] SGHC 34
- Title: Shee See Kuen and others v Sugiono Wiyono Sugialam and others and another suit
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Decision Date: 16 February 2021
- Judges: S Mohan JC
- Case Number: Suit No 564 of 2018; Suit No 565 of 2018
- Coram: S Mohan JC
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Shee See Kuen and others
- Defendant/Respondent: Sugiono Wiyono Sugialam and others and another suit
- Counsel Name(s): Goh Kok Leong / Dillion Chua Hong Bin (Cai Hongbin) (Ang & Partners) for the plaintiffs
- Legal Areas: Damages – Assessment; Damages – Punitive Damages; Damages – Aggravation; Civil Procedure – Pleadings
- Key Parties (as described): Plaintiffs: holders of 2016 and 2017 Senior Fixed Rate Notes. Fifth defendant: PT Trikomsel Oke Tbk (Indonesian company). Sixth defendant: Trikomsel Pte Ltd (Singapore). Underwriters include certain joint lead managers/bookrunners. Other defendants included individuals associated with the fifth defendant.
- Judgment Length: 10 pages, 4,799 words
- Notes at Issue: 2016 Notes (5.25% p.a. Senior Fixed Rate Notes due 2016; principal $250,000 each; issued 10 May 2013; guaranteed by fifth defendant). 2017 Notes (7.875% p.a. Senior Fixed Rate Notes due 2017; principal $250,000 each; issued 5 June 2014; guaranteed by fifth defendant).
- Procedural Posture: Default judgments entered against the fifth defendant with damages to be assessed; assessment hearing held on 18 August 2020 with the fifth defendant absent and unrepresented.
- Core Holding (as reflected in the extract): Punitive and aggravated damages were disallowed because they were not pleaded/particularised against the fifth defendant in the Statements of Claim.
Summary
In Shee See Kuen and others v Sugiono Wiyono Sugialam and others and another suit ([2021] SGHC 34), the High Court (S Mohan JC) dealt with the assessment of damages following default judgments entered against the fifth defendant, PT Trikomsel Oke Tbk, in two related suits concerning holders of senior fixed rate notes issued by a Singapore company and guaranteed by the fifth defendant. While the plaintiffs’ entitlement to compensatory damages corresponding to principal and interest was uncontested, the plaintiffs sought punitive (exemplary) and aggravated damages. The court refused those additional heads of damages.
The central reason was procedural: the plaintiffs did not plead or particularise claims for punitive and aggravated damages against the fifth defendant in the Statements of Claim. The earliest meaningful mention of such claims appeared only in the plaintiffs’ affidavits of evidence-in-chief (AEICs), and the plaintiffs quantified the punitive and aggravated damages only in written closing submissions. The court held that, in the circumstances, the claims could not be considered because they were not properly pleaded.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The plaintiffs in Suit No 564 of 2018 (“Suit 564”) were holders of a total of 15 board lots of 5.25% per annum Senior Fixed Rate Notes due 2016 (the “2016 Notes”), with each board lot having a principal amount of $250,000. The 2016 Notes were issued by the sixth defendant, Trikomsel Pte Ltd, on 10 May 2013, and payment of principal and interest was guaranteed by the fifth defendant, PT Trikomsel Oke Tbk. The plaintiffs in Suit No 565 of 2018 (“Suit 565”) held 12 board lots of 7.875% per annum Senior Fixed Rate Notes due 2017 (the “2017 Notes”), also with each board lot having a principal amount of $250,000. Those 2017 Notes were issued on 5 June 2014 by the sixth defendant, with similar guarantees by the fifth defendant.
Before the damages assessment, the plaintiffs commenced actions against multiple defendants, including individuals associated with the fifth defendant and various underwriting entities. However, by the time the assessment hearing took place on 18 August 2020, the writs against several defendants had either expired without service or had been set aside. The only remaining defendant in both suits was the fifth defendant. The fifth defendant was absent and unrepresented at the hearing.
On 15 November 2019, interlocutory judgments in default of appearance were entered against the fifth defendant in both suits pursuant to Order 13 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed), with damages to be assessed. The assessment hearing proceeded in the High Court before S Mohan JC. After the plaintiffs gave evidence and closed their case, the court directed the plaintiffs to file written closing submissions addressing, among other issues, whether they were entitled to punitive and aggravated damages against the fifth defendant. The plaintiffs filed those submissions on 28 September 2020.
At the conclusion of the assessment, the court granted final judgment orally on 10 December 2020. In Suit 564, the court awarded the plaintiffs $3,750,000 (broken down by board lots held by particular plaintiffs) plus interest at 5.25% per annum from 10 May 2015 to the date of judgment. In Suit 565, the court awarded $3,000,000 plus interest at 7.875% per annum from 5 June 2015 to the date of judgment. Costs of and incidental to the assessment were ordered to be taxed and paid by the fifth defendant. However, the court disallowed punitive and aggravated damages, giving brief reasons at the time that the claims were not pleaded.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The principal legal issue was whether the plaintiffs could obtain punitive damages and aggravated damages against the fifth defendant when those claims were not pleaded or particularised in the Statements of Claim. This issue arose in the context of default judgments and a subsequent damages assessment, where the court must still determine the scope of damages that can be awarded based on the pleadings and the evidence led.
Related to the pleading issue was the plaintiffs’ attempt to rely on later procedural steps to cure the deficiency. The plaintiffs argued that punitive and aggravated damages did not need to be pleaded, and they did not seek leave to amend their pleadings in the alternative. Thus, a second issue was whether the court should consider the evidence adduced (and the plaintiffs’ closing submissions quantifying punitive and aggravated damages) to determine whether the fifth defendant’s conduct warranted those additional heads of damages.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court approached the punitive and aggravated damages claims together because the reasoning for disallowing both was the same. The judge also clarified terminology: punitive damages and exemplary damages are used interchangeably in Singapore law, and no distinction should be drawn between them for present purposes. The court therefore focused on whether the plaintiffs’ “punitive damages” claim could properly be considered.
On the pleading record, the court found that the plaintiffs’ Statements of Claim did not properly set out punitive or aggravated damages against the fifth defendant. The extract indicates that, even in relation to other defendants (notably the third and eighth defendants), the claims for exemplary or aggravated damages were not strictly pleaded or particularised in the body of the Statements of Claim. As against the fifth defendant, the deficiency was more pronounced: there was no pleading or particularisation of punitive or aggravated damages in the Statements of Claim, and the relief was not sought as specific reliefs against the fifth defendant.
Critically, the court observed that the earliest mention of “punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages” against the fifth defendant appeared only in the plaintiffs’ AEICs dated 7 August 2020. In those AEICs, the plaintiffs stated that, but for an alleged overstatement of the fifth defendant’s income and assets, they would not have bought the notes, and that such conduct constituted “outrageous conduct” for purposes of a claim for punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages. However, the court treated this as insufficient to satisfy the pleading requirement, particularly because the plaintiffs did not quantify the punitive/aggravated damages in the pleadings and did not seek leave to amend.
The court further noted that the plaintiffs’ AEICs claimed punitive or aggravated damages “without any quantified sums”. The quantum was addressed only later, in closing submissions dated 28 September 2020, where the plaintiffs proposed specific quantification: punitive damages of 150% of the principal amount of the notes, and aggravated damages of $150,000 per board lot. The court’s reasoning, as reflected in the extract, was that this approach effectively attempted to introduce a new and quantified claim at a stage too late to be fairly considered, especially given that the fifth defendant was absent and had not participated in the assessment hearing.
Although the extract truncates the remainder of the judgment, the judge’s analysis is anchored in a clear procedural principle: parties must plead the case they intend to run, and the court should not award damages on a basis that was not pleaded or particularised, particularly where the defendant has not had a proper opportunity to respond. In this case, the fifth defendant’s absence and the default posture increased the importance of ensuring that the scope of damages sought was clearly set out in the pleadings. The plaintiffs’ failure to plead punitive and aggravated damages against the fifth defendant meant that the court could not treat those claims as properly before it for determination.
The plaintiffs relied on the Court of Appeal decision in ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] 1 SLR 918 (“ACB”) for the substantive proposition that punitive damages are a response to conduct beyond the pale deserving special condemnation, and may be awarded in tort where the totality of the defendant’s conduct is so outrageous that it warrants punishment, deterrence, and condemnation. However, the High Court’s decision in this case turned on the procedural prerequisite: even if the plaintiffs could potentially establish the substantive threshold for punitive damages, they had not pleaded the claim properly against the fifth defendant.
Accordingly, the court declined to consider whether the evidence demonstrated conduct warranting punitive and aggravated damages. This is consistent with the court’s stated approach: its decision “revolved around the pleading point” and it therefore did not proceed to a substantive evaluation of outrageousness or the evidential basis for punitive/aggravated damages.
What Was the Outcome?
The court allowed the plaintiffs’ claims for compensatory damages corresponding to the principal and interest under the 2016 and 2017 Notes, and ordered interest at the contractual rates from the relevant dates to the date of judgment. Costs of and incidental to the assessment were to be taxed and paid by the fifth defendant.
However, the court disallowed the plaintiffs’ claims for punitive damages and aggravated damages against the fifth defendant. The practical effect was that, despite the plaintiffs’ attempt to seek additional punitive and aggravated components based on alleged misrepresentation and “outrageous conduct”, the plaintiffs’ recovery was limited to the compensatory heads of damages that were properly before the court.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This decision is a useful reminder that punitive damages and aggravated damages are not merely “add-ons” to compensatory damages; they are distinct heads of relief that require careful pleading and particularisation. For practitioners, the case underscores that the court will enforce pleading requirements even in the context of default judgments and even where the defendant does not participate in the assessment hearing.
Substantively, the case also illustrates the relationship between the substantive threshold for punitive damages (as discussed in ACB) and the procedural gatekeeping function of pleadings. Even if the evidence might support a finding of outrageous conduct, the court may refuse to consider punitive or aggravated damages if the claim was not properly pleaded against the relevant defendant and quantified in a timely and procedurally fair manner.
From a litigation strategy perspective, the case highlights the importance of identifying the correct defendant(s) against whom punitive or aggravated damages are sought, and ensuring that the pleadings clearly articulate the basis and relief. Where a party intends to seek punitive damages, counsel should consider pleading the claim expressly, providing sufficient particulars, and quantifying or at least clearly framing the quantum sought, or seeking leave to amend if new issues arise after pleadings have closed.
Legislation Referenced
- Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) – Order 13 (default judgments)
- Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) – (referenced generally in relation to default judgment procedure)
Cases Cited
- ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd [2017] 1 SLR 918
- Shee See Kuen and others v Sugiono Wiyono Sugialam and others and another suit [2021] SGHC 34
- [2020] SGCA 106
- [2021] SGHC 10
Source Documents
This article analyses [2021] SGHC 34 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.