LANDSCAPE ENGINEERING PTE LTD v DOT SAFETY SOLUTIONS PTE. LTD. & Anor

Facts

Landscape Engineering Pte Ltd leased premises to Dot Safety Solutions Pte Ltd and later sued it in DC/OC 1760/2023, claiming unpaid rent for March 2023 to June 2023 and that Dot had not given back the premises when the lease expired. Landscape obtained summary judgment, Dot's appeal was dismissed, and enforcement followed. Landscape then brought HC/OA/616/2025 for an extended civil restraint order against Dot and its director, Mr Kumarandy Alaguraj, asserting that Dot had made a series of unmeritorious applications dismissed with costs that remained unpaid.

In HC/SUM 2122/2025, Dot and Mr Alaguraj applied for permission for him to represent Dot in all court proceedings. They said each application had been made in good faith, that he was a layperson, and that Dot could not afford a lawyer. Landscape opposed, relying on Lin Yueh Hung v Andreas Vogel & Partner, Rechtsanwaelte AV & P Legal LLP [2024] 3 SLR 1020 to argue that O 4 r 3(3)(b) of the Rules of Court 2021 looks only at the officer's characteristics and abilities, not his role. It said he lacked competence and procedural discipline and that the company was being used for vexatious litigation.

Issues

1. Whether Mr Alaguraj had been duly authorised by Dot to act for it
2. Whether sufficient executive or administrative capacity in O 4 r 3(3)(b) refers to the officer's role in the company
3. Whether other factors gave good reason to refuse permission despite the rule being satisfied

Holding

The High Court allowed the application in part. It gave Mr Alaguraj permission to represent Dot only in Dot's proceedings in OA 616, not in all court proceedings as sought, and cautioned him that if he kept relying on AI for his submissions he must verify its output, warning of possible personal costs consequences.

Reasoning

An ACRA search showed Mr Alaguraj as Dot's sole director, sole shareholder and Chief Executive Officer, and he produced a warrant to act, so he was duly authorised.

The court held that O 4 r 3(3)(b) has two disjunctive elements. The first, sufficient executive or administrative capacity, refers to the officer's role and position in the company, consistent with the use of capacity in the definition of officer in O 4 r 3(6). The second, being a proper person, concerns competence and conduct. Read in context, Lin Yueh Hung did not exclude the officer's role. As sole director, shareholder and CEO, he satisfied the first element, so the second did not need to be decided.

Because the rule says the court may grant permission, there remains a discretion, but once both requirements are met permission should ordinarily follow unless there is good reason. Weighing the Bulk Trading factors, Dot's inability to afford counsel, its position as a respondent, the one-man structure, and the fact that he would appear in person anyway all favoured permission; costs could be ordered against both respondents. Against this, he had relied on generative AI and cited no fewer than six fictitious cases, appeared to fail persistently to follow procedure, and needed a Tamil interpreter. The court accepted lay representation would reduce the assistance to it, but this was outweighed by the prejudice to the respondents, and permission was consistent with fair access to justice.

From the judgment