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

Facts

Landscape Engineering Pte Ltd leased premises to Dot Safety Solutions Pte Ltd from 2022 to 2023. In DC/OC 1760/2023, Landscape claimed that Dot refused to pay rent for March 2023 to June 2023 and failed to give up possession when the lease ended. Landscape obtained summary judgment for possession, $17,080 in unpaid rent and double rent of $8,640 per month.

Dot then brought a series of appeals and applications in the State Courts about that judgment, including a stay of enforcement, an application to compel mediation and an appeal against its dismissal, an application to restore the stay summons, and an extension of time to appeal. In Originating Application No 616 of 2025, Landscape applied under s 73C of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act for an extended civil restraint order (ECRO) against Dot and against Mr Kumarandy Alaguraj, Dot's sole shareholder and director, and also asked that he be made personally liable for costs awarded against Dot.

Issues

1. Whether Dot's applications were totally without merit.
2. Whether Dot had persistently made such applications, so that an ECRO could be granted.
3. Whether the High Court could order Mr Alaguraj to pay costs awarded in the State Court proceedings.

Holding

The court allowed the application in part. It granted an ECRO against Dot for two years, restraining it from bringing any action or application concerning OC 1760 or its enforcement without the court's permission. The prayers against Mr Alaguraj and for a stay of proceedings were withdrawn, and the court made no order on the personal costs prayer, leaving Landscape to pursue it in the State Courts. Dot was ordered to pay costs of $8,000 all-in.

Reasoning

Applying Joseph Clement Louis Arokaisamy v Singapore Airlines Ltd [2020] 5 SLR 869 and The National University of Singapore v Ten Leu Jiun Jeanne-Marie [2023] SGHC 191, the court assessed each application. Dot's first appeal was not totally without merit because the District Judge varied the start date of double rent; a withdrawn duplicate summons and a pending appeal were not counted. The stay application gave no special circumstances; mediation could not be compelled where judgment had already been given; the restoration summons used the wrong procedure and was futile; and the extension application came after a long, unexplained delay with an appeal doomed to fail. Lower courts had described Dot as appearing highly litigious.

Five totally unmeritorious applications, all stemming from dissatisfaction with one judgment, amounted to persistence under s 73C, consistent with the numbers in the earlier cases.

Under the Rules of Court 2021, the court that heard a matter fixes its costs, and neither exception for the General Division applied, as Landscape's counsel accepted. Mr Alaguraj had only represented Dot and had not brought applications himself, so no personal costs were ordered against him in this application either.

From the judgment