Zhang Xin v Liu Yingkui

Shenzhen Zehuijin Investment Center (Limited Partnership) (SZIC), a PRC limited partnership, obtained an arbitral award against Liu Yingkui and, on 3 March 2023, judgment in Singapore in the terms of the award, including a refund of RMB140,000,000. It then obtained an enforcement order in HC/EO 48/2023 authorising the Sheriff to seize and sell Liu's immovable property, including a property at Depot Road. The sale stalled because the mortgagee, HSBC, did not consent.

Liu's wife, Zhang Xin, first filed HC/OA 65/2024 against SZIC and Liu, claiming the whole beneficial interest in the property and seeking to set aside the enforcement order, but had difficulty serving SZIC in the PRC. When HSBC moved to sell the property, she filed Originating Application No 297 of 2025 on 24 March 2025 against Liu alone for a declaration that she was the beneficial owner. HSBC was added as an intervener by consent. Learning of the case, SZIC applied by Summons No 2478 of 2025 to be added as an intervener, or alternatively as a respondent. Zhang accepted that SZIC could be added but argued it should be a respondent, and asked to amend her application to include the reliefs sought in OA 65. The application was heard by Assistant Registrar Vikram Rajaram.

1. Whether the Rules of Court 2021 permit a non-party to be added as an intervener in ordinary civil proceedings
2. Whether SZIC should be permitted to participate in OA 297 as an intervener, and to what extent
3. Whether, alternatively, SZIC should be added as a respondent on condition that Zhang could amend OA 297 to include the claims in OA 65

The Assistant Registrar accepted that, outside admiralty actions and appeals, nothing in the Rules of Court 2021 expressly allows a person to be joined as an intervener, and O 9 r 10 speaks only of adding claimants or defendants. But the case law showed courts letting non-parties take part, sometimes called interveners, as in Poongothai Kuppusamy v Huationg Contractor Pte Ltd and another (Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore, intervener) [2021] SGHC 108 and Yeow Jen Ai Susan v Ravindaranath Kalyana Ramaswamy (Vishnumangalam Chandrasekharan Renuka, intervener) [2021] SGHC 94, and sometimes simply non-parties, as recognised in Golden Hill Capital Pte Ltd and others v Yihua Lifestyle Technology Co, Ltd and another [2021] 2 SLR 1113. The court's general power in O 3 r 2(2) also filled any gap. The label does not make the intervener a party, and the scope of its role stays with the court. The e-Litigation system's options were legally irrelevant.

The O 9 r 10 tests for adding a party did not strictly apply. The common thread in the cases was that the non-party's interests could be directly affected by the ruling. SZIC, owed a large judgment debt and holding an order to sell the property, would be materially affected if Zhang were declared beneficial owner.

On the alternative prayer, though unnecessary to decide, SZIC would have been added as a respondent without any amendment condition. There was some merit in SZIC's argument that importing the OA 65 claims could circumvent the need to serve it with that application, but any amendment needed its own application. Costs were set at the lower end of the range for complex applications given the special hearing and extra submissions.

The Assistant Registrar allowed SZIC's primary prayer and added it to OA 297 as an intervener, entitled at least to attend hearings and contest the reliefs sought, with any further participation to be the subject of separate directions. Zhang was ordered to pay SZIC costs fixed at S$9,000 plus limited disbursements.