LUM OOI LIN v HYFLUX LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) & 4 Ors

[2023] SGCA 43 Court of Appeal 30 November 2023 CA/CA 30/2023

16 cases cited (3 SG, 13 foreign)

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	30 November 2023
Judges	Belinda Ang Saw Ean, Steven Chong, Sundaresh Menon
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Davinder Singh Chambers LLC, Kenneth Tan Partnership, Tan Kok Quan Partnership, Gitta Priska Adelya, Jaikanth Shankar, Kenneth Tan, Leong Qianyu, Ng Ka Luon Eddee, Rajvinder Singh Chahal, Sambhavi Rajangam, Sheiffa Safi Shirbeeni, Stella Ng Yu Xin, Teo Jin Yun Germaine

Source: [2023] SGCA 43, Court of Appeal, decided 30 November 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure - Appeals - Leave Civil Procedure - Costs - Security

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (3)

Belinda Ang Saw Ean Delivered Steven Chong Coram Sundaresh Menon Coram

Counsel (13)

Davinder Singh Chambers LLC Firm Kenneth Tan Partnership Firm Tan Kok Quan Partnership Firm Gitta Priska Adelya Counsel for the respondent Jaikanth Shankar Counsel for the appellant Kenneth Tan Counsel for the respondent Leong Qianyu Counsel for the respondent Ng Ka Luon Eddee Counsel for the respondent Rajvinder Singh Chahal Counsel for the appellant Sambhavi Rajangam Counsel for the appellant Sheiffa Safi Shirbeeni Counsel for the appellant Stella Ng Yu Xin Counsel for the appellant Teo Jin Yun Germaine Counsel for the respondent

Parties (6)

Hydrochem (S) Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) Respondent Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) Respondent Tuaspring Pte Ltd (under receivership) Respondent Cosimo Borrelli Respondent Lum Ooi Lin Appellant Patrick Bance Respondent

Case Significance

LUM OOI LIN v HYFLUX LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) & 4 Ors [2023] SGCA 43 is a judgment of the Court of Appeal, delivered by Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA on 30 November 2023, with Sundaresh Menon CJ and Steven Chong JCA on the coram, following a hearing on 25 July 2023. The appeal, Civil Appeal No 30 of 2023, concerned an order for security for costs made in RA 42 of 2023 in the form of a joint undertaking furnished by the respondents' litigation funder's parent company and its Singapore-incorporated subsidiary. Permission to appeal had been granted by the Appellate Division in OA 33 of 2023, which framed two questions of law on the principles governing the forms of security the court can order. Respondents included Hyflux Ltd, Hydrochem (S) Pte Ltd and Tuaspring Pte Ltd, and the case cites 16 authorities.

Summary

Lum Ooi Lin appealed to the Court of Appeal against a High Court decision ordering security for costs in the form of a joint undertaking by the respondents' litigation funder's parent company and its Singapore subsidiary, in proceedings involving Hyflux Ltd and related companies in liquidation. The appeal concerned the principles governing the court's discretion over the form of security for costs. The court affirmed the applicable principles and dismissed the appeal with costs fixed at $25,000.

What was Lum Ooi Lin v Hyflux Ltd [2023] SGCA 43 about?

It was a Court of Appeal decision delivered by Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA on 30 November 2023 concerning security for costs ordered in RA 42 of 2023, provided through a joint undertaking by the respondents' litigation funder's parent company and a Singapore subsidiary.

Which judges heard Lum Ooi Lin v Hyflux [2023] SGCA 43?

The Court of Appeal coram comprised Sundaresh Menon CJ, Steven Chong JCA and Belinda Ang Saw Ean JCA, who delivered the judgment on 30 November 2023 after hearing the appeal on 25 July 2023 in Civil Appeal No 30 of 2023.