SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
7 June 2024
Case summary
Singapore International Commercial Court Originating Application No 15 of 2023
(Summons No 58 of 2023)
Hii Yii Ann and anor v Tiong Thai King and anor matter [2024] SGHC(I) 16
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court (delivered by Thomas Bathurst IJ):
Outcome: The SICC orders the first defendant to provide further and better particulars to the Claimants in respect of certain portions of their defence and counterclaim.
Background
1. SIC/SUM 58/2023 (“SUM 58”) is an application by Mr Hii Yii Ann and Alliance Lumber (PNG) Limited (the “Claimants”) for further and better particulars of the Defence and Counterclaim (Amendment No 1) dated 15 June 2023 of the First Defendant (the “Defence”), Mr Tiong Thai King, in SIC/OA 15/2023 (“OA 15”).
2. The First Claimant is a businessman resident in Singapore. He controls and operates companies which hold timber concessions in Papua New Guinea, one of which is the Second Claimant. The First Defendant is a businessman resident in Malaysia. The Second Defendant, Everrise Cooperation Pte Ltd (“Everrise”), is a company incorporated in Singapore for the sole purpose of managing the operational and financial aspects of the business collaboration between the First Claimant and First Defendant. The First Claimant and his nominees hold 60% of the shares in Everrise, with the remaining 40% held by the First Defendant and his nominees.
3. The claim made by the Claimants in OA 15 arises out of an alleged breach of a logging agreement between the Claimants and the First Defendant and what were described as “Ancillary Contracts”. According to the Claimants, the logging agreement provided for the First Defendant to fell and extract logs from various areas in the West Sepik Province of Papua New Guinea, pursuant to a Timber Permit (“TP 10-01”) which the Second Claimant had allegedly obtained from the Papua New Guinea Forest Authority ("PNGFA”). Under the agreement, the First Defendant was obliged to extract and sell at least 100,000 cubic metres of timber or such other volume of timber as permitted by the PNGFA (the “Guaranteed Annual Minimum Volume”).
4. The Claimants allege the First Defendant breached the logging agreement by failing to extract the Guaranteed Annual Minimum Volume of timber required pursuant to the agreement.
5. The First Defendant has raised a number of defences to the claim. The Claimants sought further particulars on the First Defendant’s Defence. The particulars were supplied on 25 August 2023 but were said by the Claimants to be inadequate. The Claimants sought further and better particulars. The First Defendant declined to give further particulars and the Claimants have brought this application seeking them.
6. The Claimants’ application for further and better particulars concern four categories – implied terms, mistake, breaches of obligations/delay/prevention and damages.
The court’s decision
7. In relation to Category 1 on implied terms, the SICC decided the Defence adequately discloses the case which the Claimants have to meet. Accordingly, no further particularisation is required (at [14] to [16]).
8. In relation to Category 2 on mistake, the SICC decided that the identity of the person who discovered the mistake and the means by which it was discovered are not evidence but material facts which should be particularised. The SICC further decided that further particularisation was necessary in relation to the First Defendant’s allegation that TP 10-01 was invalid because there was in existence at that material time another timber project LFA 10-01 operating in the same areas as TP 10-01 (at [20] to [21]).
9. The SICC decided that the Claimants are entitled to proper particulars of any agreement, common intention or understanding alleged by the First Defendant (at [23]).
10. In relation to Category 3 on breach of obligations/delay/prevention, the SICC held that the First Defendant’s pleadings which sets out the breach and the effect includes all necessary material facts and therefore declined to order further particulars (at [26]).
11. However, the SICC held that the timing and extent of the First Defendant’s allegation that the onset of COVID-19 in Papua New Guinea and the restrictions implemented by the government adversely affected logging operations are material facts which should be particularised (at [27]).
12. The SICC decided that save for the particulars sought in paragraphs 19 to 21 of the summary table prepared by the parties, no further particularisation was required in respect of Category 3 (at [28] to [33]).
13. In respect of Category 4 on damages, the SICC decided that it was sufficient for a party to plead heads of damage without descending to precise quantification. Accordingly, the SICC declined to order further particulars in relation to Category 4 (at [34]).
14. The SICC directed that the question of costs would be reserved to the determination of OA 15 (at [35]).
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s judgment.