HYFLUX LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) & 35 Ors v KPMG LLP

[2023] SGHC 270 High Court (General Division) 27 September 2023 HC/S 268/2022 ( HC/RA 181/2023 ) 9 min read

Cited by 2 cases

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	27 September 2023
Judge	Choo Han Teck
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Kenneth Tan Partnership, TSMP Law Corporation, Tan Kok Quan Partnership, Eddee Ng Ka Luon, Gitta Priska Adelya, Joshua Phang Shih Ern, Juliana Lake, Kenneth Tan, Leong Qianyu, Thio Shen Yi

Source: [2023] SGHC 270, High Court (General Division), decided 27 September 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Further and better particulars

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Choo Han Teck Delivered

Counsel (10)

Kenneth Tan Partnership Firm TSMP Law Corporation Firm Tan Kok Quan Partnership Firm Eddee Ng Ka Luon Counsel Plaintiff Gitta Priska Adelya Counsel Plaintiff Joshua Phang Shih Ern Counsel Defendant Juliana Lake Counsel Defendant Kenneth Tan Counsel Plaintiff Leong Qianyu Counsel Plaintiff Thio Shen Yi Counsel Defendant

Parties (4)

Hydrochem (S) Pte Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) Plaintiff Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) Plaintiff KPMG LLP Defendant Tuaspring Pte Ltd (under receivership) Plaintiff

Case Significance

Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and others v KPMG LLP [2023] SGHC 270 is a reserved judgment of Choo Han Teck J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 27 September 2023 in Suit No 268 of 2022 (Registrar's Appeal No 181 of 2023). The three remaining plaintiffs — Hyflux Ltd, Hydrochem (S) Pte Ltd and Tuaspring Pte Ltd — brought claims against KPMG LLP for breach of contract, breach of statutory duties, misrepresentation and negligence. The proceedings were KPMG's appeal against the assistant registrar's refusal to order further and better particulars of four of its requests. Choo Han Teck J agreed that the four requests were requests for evidence rather than particulars of the cause of action, and dismissed the appeal.

[2023] SGHC 270 explained

HYFLUX LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) & 35 Ors v KPMG LLP ([2023] SGHC 270) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 27 September 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 270 about?

HYFLUX LTD (IN COMPULSORY LIQUIDATION) & 35 Ors v KPMG LLP ([2023] SGHC 270) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Further and better particulars”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

How influential is [2023] SGHC 270?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 270 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

Hyflux Ltd (in compulsory liquidation) and other plaintiffs sued KPMG LLP with claims including breach of contract, breach of statutory duties, misrepresentation and negligence, and KPMG appealed against the assistant registrar's refusal to order further and better particulars of four of its requests. The court agreed the four requests were requests for evidence rather than particulars of the cause of action, and emphasised that pleadings must state the cause of action clearly without padding by evidence. The appeal was dismissed.

What was Hyflux Ltd v KPMG LLP [2023] SGHC 270 about?

It was an appeal before Choo Han Teck J by KPMG LLP against an assistant registrar's refusal to order further and better particulars of four requests, in Hyflux's action against KPMG, decided on 27 September 2023.

How did the court decide [2023] SGHC 270?

Choo Han Teck J dismissed KPMG's appeal, agreeing with the assistant registrar that the four requests were requests for evidence, not particulars of the cause of action, in Suit No 268 of 2022 (Registrar's Appeal No 181 of 2023).