SINGAPORE Trends and Developments Contributed by: KOH Swee Yen, SC, Wendy LIN, TIONG Teck Wee and Monica CHONG Wan Yee, WongPartnership LLP
ondly, whether the appeal will be rendered nugatory if a stay is not granted. However, the Court found that the test for the grant of an Erinford injunction also involves a balancing test to compare the prejudice and the comparative effects of granting or not granting the injunction. The two above- mentioned factors were merely the two primary fac- tors that the court will consider, and not the only fac- tors. Further, in deciding whether a stay of execution pending appeal should be granted, the court would also undertake a balancing exercise. Since a stay of execution pending appeal and an Erinford injunction are two sides of the same coin, the same principle should apply to the test for the grant of an Erinford injunction. Accordingly, the Court clarified that the test for wheth- er an Erinford injunction should be granted comprises two parts. The first relates to the likelihood of a suc- cessful appeal, and the second requires a balancing exercise of the effects of granting or not granting the injunction on the parties. The issue of whether the appeal is rendered nugatory is part of the second part of the test, but where, in any particular case, it is clear that an appeal would be rendered nugatory, then the injunction should be granted. The Court ultimately decided to grant the Erinford injunction as it found that there was a reasonable like- lihood of success on appeal as the applicant’s argu- ments were not a bare disagreement with the reasons behind the decision being appealed, and the balance lay in favour of the applicant, who might suffer sig- nificant financial impact if the Erinford injunction was not granted. Developments Relating to Civil Procedure Terms of judgment following the striking out of a defence – Clients, Investors, and Partners Group Limited (formerly “The Watchfund Limited”) and anor v Tse Siu Hang (2025, Appellate Division of the High Court, unreported) Defences of two defendants were struck out follow- ing non-compliance with an unless order made in light of the defendants’ breaches of a prior document production order. Following the striking-out order, the claimant entered judgment in terms of the reliefs
sought in his Statement of Claim (SOC), namely: (a) an investment agreement between the claimant and first defendant be rescinded; and consequently, (b) the first defendant and its sole controller the second defend- ant are jointly and severally liable to return monies invested by the claimant under the said investment agreement (“Joint & Several Order”). The defendants applied to set aside the judgment, arguing (among other things) that it had been entered without regard for the steps mentioned in the Court of Appeal’s decision in Toh Wee Ping Benjamin and another v Grande Corp Pte Ltd [2020] 2 SLR 308 (“ Toh ”). In Toh (which was decided under the Rules of Court 2014), the plaintiff had obtained an order against the defendants for their defence to be struck out and judgment to be entered for the plaintiffs for damag- es to be assessed, on the basis that the defendants had breached a series of discovery obligations and court orders in the action. At the assessment hear- ing, the defendants contested the quanta of sums claimed by the plaintiff. The question then arose as to the consequences for an assessment hearing where the underlying defence was struck out. The Court of Appeal held that where a defence is struck out, only allegations of fact made in the statement of claim are deemed admitted. The corollary is that averments of law or points of law in a statement of claim are not deemed admitted and it is for the court to decide on the same at the assessment hearing if necessary. As for averments that engage both issues of fact and law, the court must be satisfied that the facts pleaded in the statement of claim alone are sufficient to sustain the pleaded claims. The defendants argued that, in light of Toh , the Court in allowing judgment to be entered should have, but did not, inquire as to whether the claimant’s SOC could sustain his claims. Among other things, the defend- ants argued that the basis of the Joint & Several Order (which was that the first defendant’s corporate veil should be pierced such that the second defendant should also be liable as its alter ego) was not made out by the facts pleaded in the SOC.
1021 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook