ENG'S WANTAN NOODLE PTE. LTD. & Anor v ENG'S CHAR SIEW WANTAN MEE PTE. LTD.
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Navin Anand |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Eldan Law LLP, Infinitus Law Corporation, Kuek Kai Liang, Lee Shu Xian, Leo Cheng Suan, Wong Siew Hong |
Source: [2023] SGHCR 17, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (6)
Case Significance
Eng's Wantan Noodle Pte Ltd and another v Eng's Char Siew Wantan Mee Pte Ltd [2023] SGHCR 17 is a reserved judgment of Assistant Registrar Navin Anand in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 26 October 2023 in Originating Claim No 365 of 2022 (Summonses Nos 2993 and 2994 of 2023). The underlying dispute concerns the right to use the "Eng's" name in businesses selling wanton noodles, tracing to a hawker stall at Dunman Food Centre run by Mr Ng Ba Eng, with the parties seeking a determination on passing off and trademark infringement. In the two summonses, each side filed a Single Application Pending Trial under O 9 r 9 of the Rules of Court 2021 seeking orders on the production of documents and security for costs ahead of a trial fixed for early the following year.
[2023] SGHCR 17 explained
ENG'S WANTAN NOODLE PTE. LTD. & Anor v ENG'S CHAR SIEW WANTAN MEE PTE. LTD. ([2023] SGHCR 17) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 26 October 2023. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 6 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] SGHCR 17 about?
ENG'S WANTAN NOODLE PTE. LTD. & Anor v ENG'S CHAR SIEW WANTAN MEE PTE. LTD. ([2023] SGHCR 17) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Costs — Security” and “Civil Procedure — Production of Documents”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2023] SGHCR 17 consider?
The judgment refers to Companies Act (Cap 50) and Trade Marks Act (Cap 332). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
What earlier Singapore cases does [2023] SGHCR 17 cite?
Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2023] SGHCR 13, [2023] SGHC 178, and [2023] SGHC 160. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.
How influential is [2023] SGHCR 17?
Within this corpus, [2023] SGHCR 17 has been cited by 6 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
This dispute concerned rival businesses claiming the right to use the "Eng's" name for wanton noodles, with Eng's Wantan Noodle Pte Ltd and Thomas Hong bringing passing off and trademark claims against Eng's Char Siew Wantan Mee Pte Ltd. Both sides sought production of documents, and the claimants also sought security for costs on the counterclaim. The Assistant Registrar dismissed both applications, finding the documents immaterial to the trial issues and ordering security would not be just.
What was Eng's Wantan Noodle v Eng's Char Siew Wantan Mee [2023] SGHCR 17 about?
It was a pre-trial dispute before Assistant Registrar Navin Anand over the right to use the "Eng's" name for wanton noodle businesses, with each side filing a Single Application Pending Trial for document production and security for costs, decided on 26 October 2023.
What applications were before the court in [2023] SGHCR 17?
Under O 9 r 9 of the Rules of Court 2021, the claimants and the defendant each filed a Single Application Pending Trial seeking orders on the production of documents and security for costs, ahead of a trial fixed for early the following year.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (18)
Cited By (6)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2023] SGHCR 17)