Hertel Singapore Pte Ltd (n.k.a. Altrad Services Singapore Pte Ltd) & Anor v Cheng Swee Guan & 6 Ors

Facts

Hertel Singapore Pte Ltd (now Altrad Services Singapore Pte Ltd) and Kok Chang Scaffolding Pte Ltd sued several defendants in Originating Claim No 993 of 2024. They alleged that the first and second defendants, who were two of the first claimant's authorised payment signatories, devised a scheme of false quotations, purchase orders and invoices in the names of third-party vendors, causing payments for goods and services never supplied.

The second defendant, Lorenzo Wang Lianzhong, asked the claimants to identify the alleged false documents by date and serial number, but they refused, saying this was evidence. Before any single application pending trial (SAPT) had been directed, he wrote to the court on 2 April 2025 asking for permission to apply for further and better particulars identifying the documents. An Assistant Registrar allowed the request the next day, apparently before the claimants, who had asked for time to respond, were heard. The claimants appealed in Registrar's Appeal No 84 of 2025.

Issues

1. Whether the claimants were entitled to be heard before permission was granted under O 9 r 9(8) of the Rules of Court 2021
2. Whether the decision had to be set aside because they were not heard
3. Whether the request for permission should be allowed on its merits

Holding

Chua Lee Ming J dismissed the appeal and ordered the claimants to pay the second defendant costs fixed at $5,000 (inclusive of disbursements), reduced to reflect that the second defendant had at first denied the claimants any right to be heard.

Reasoning

On the first issue, the court held that the right to be heard applies. The power under O 9 r 9(9) to deal with a request summarily means only that it may be decided without an oral hearing at a case conference. A request may be rejected outright without hearing the other side, since rejection does not harm it, but it cannot be allowed without giving the opposing party a chance to respond, by letter or at a case conference. The Assistant Registrar therefore should not have allowed the request before hearing the claimants.

On the second issue, an appeal from a registrar is a rehearing, but in procedural matters the appellate court gives the lower court maximum autonomy and intervenes only to prevent substantial injustice. The claimants still had to show the decision was wrong on the merits.

On the merits, the intended application was necessary at that stage for the reasons the second defendant gave. Fraud must be pleaded with the utmost particularity, which may include identifying the documents relied on, and there was a strong case that the claimants should have identified the alleged fictitious documents in their Statement of Claim. The complaint that he might tailor his evidence went to the merits of the intended application, as did the objection that the application exceeded the permission given. Nothing showed that substantial injustice would follow if the decision stood.

From the judgment