Woon Tek Seng v V Jayaraman: Discontinuance, Res Judicata & Abuse of Process

In Woon Tek Seng and Another v V Jayaraman a/l V A Vellasamy and Another, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the decision of District Judge Toh Han Li on the principles of court-directed case management and the plaintiffs’ right to recommence a suit that had been deemed discontinued. The plaintiffs, Woon Tek Seng and Rahimah Binti Haji Hashim, commenced a fresh action against the first defendant, V Jayaraman A/L V A Vellasamy, seeking contribution as co-surety for sums paid to settle a guarantee. The Deputy Registrar struck out the plaintiffs’ action as an abuse of process, but the High Court allowed the plaintiffs’ appeal, dismissing the striking out application and entering interlocutory judgment for the plaintiffs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding discontinuance rules and recommencement of a suit. The court allowed the appeal, dismissing the striking out application.

1.7 Decision Date

17 March 2008

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Woon Tek Seng	Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Muthu Kumaran of Bernard & Rada Law Corporation
Rahimah Binti Haji Hashim	Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Muthu Kumaran of Bernard & Rada Law Corporation
V Jayaraman a/l V A Vellasamy	Defendant	Individual	Striking Out Application Dismissed	Lost	Suja Michelle Sasidharan of Lim & Lim
Singa Motivasi (M) Sdn Bhd	Defendant	Corporation	Neutral	Neutral

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Seng Onn	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Muthu Kumaran	Bernard & Rada Law Corporation
Suja Michelle Sasidharan	Lim & Lim

4. Facts

Woon Tek Seng and Rahimah Binti Haji Hashim and V Jayaraman A/L V A Vellasamy are shareholders of Singa Motivasi (M) Sdn Bhd.
The company purchased a property with financing from a bank.
The plaintiffs and the 1st defendant were joint and several guarantors for the company's mortgage.
The company defaulted on mortgage payments, and the plaintiffs settled the outstanding amounts.
The plaintiffs commenced two suits to recover contribution from the 1st defendant.
Interlocutory judgments were obtained in the earlier suits, but the assessment never took place.
The consolidated suit was deemed discontinued due to no steps being taken for over a year.

5. Formal Citations

Woon Tek Seng and Another v V Jayaraman a/l V A Vellasamy and Another, DC Suit 1245/2006, [2008] SGHC 38

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1997-05-26	Written guarantee signed
1998-05-20	Interlocutory judgment obtained for MC Suit No 28 of 1998
1999-09-22	Interlocutory judgment obtained for DC Suit No 50727 of 1999
1999-09-22	Two suits were consolidated
2003-09-05	Court granted application by United Merchant Finance Bhd to cease as a party to the consolidated suit
2004-09-06	Consolidated suit deemed discontinued
2006-03-31	Present action commenced
2008-03-18	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that the fresh action was not an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2003] 3 SLR 644
  - [1989] 2 MLJ 423
Automatic Discontinuance
- Outcome: The court clarified the available steps after automatic discontinuance and the right to commence a fresh action.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2004] 1 SLR 181
  - [2003] 4 SLR 429
Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court held that res judicata did not apply to bar the fresh action.
- Category: Substantive
Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that issue estoppel did not preclude the plaintiffs from bringing the action.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Contribution from co-surety

9. Cause of Actions

Contribution as co-surety under a guarantee

10. Practice Areas

Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Tan Kim Seng v Ibrahim Victor Adam	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 1 SLR 181	Singapore	Cited for the rationale behind the automatic discontinuance rules and the emphasis on expedition and economy in litigation.
Moguntia-Est Epices SA v Sea-Hawk Freight Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2003] 4 SLR 429	Singapore	Cited for the guidelines governing reinstatement of a discontinued action.
Rastin v British Steel plc	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 2 All ER 641	England and Wales	Cited as the origin of the guidelines for reinstatement of a discontinued action.
Bannister v SGB plc	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] 4 All ER 129	England and Wales	Cited for the simplified guidelines set out in Rastin regarding reinstatement of a discontinued action.
Kwa Ban Cheong v Kuah Boon Sek and others	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR 644	Singapore	Cited for the principle that determining abuse of process requires a broad, merits-based judgment considering private and public interests.
Ansa Teknik (M) Sdn Bhd v Cygal Sdn Bhd	High Court	Yes	[1989] 2 MLJ 423	Malaysia	Cited as an example where the motive behind the plaintiff’s actions was taken into account when determining abuse of process.
Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 517	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the jurisdiction to strike out a statement of claim is only exercised in a plain and obvious case.
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin & Ors	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 374	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court’s power to strike out an action is a draconian one and should not be exercised too readily.
Lonrho v Fayed (No 5)	N/A	Yes	[1993] 1 WLR 1489	N/A	Cited for the principle that an action brought for an ulterior or collateral purpose may be struck out as an abuse of process.
North West Water Ltd v Binnie & Partners	N/A	Yes	[1990] 3 All ER 547	N/A	Cited for the principle that striking out proceedings is a drastic step that deprives a litigant of the opportunity to have their claim or defense tried by the court.
Bragg v Oceanus Mutual Underwriting Association (Bermuda) Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1982] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 132	N/A	Cited for the principle that the onus of proving an abuse of process lies firmly on the party alleging it.
Gardner v. Southwark London Borough Council (No. 2)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 W.L.R. 561	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that negligence, ignorance, dilatoriness, lethargy or mistake does not equate to wilful or contumacious disobedience.
Tong Guan Food Products Pte Ltd and Others v Teo Cheow Ngoh and Another	High Court	Yes	[2004] SGHC 261	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff has the right to commence a fresh action unless the discontinuance is done on terms which prohibit it.
Hendrawan Setiadi v OCBC Securities Ltd and Others	N/A	Yes	[2001] 4 SLR 503	Singapore	Cited to distinguish from automatic discontinuance cases where a fresh action is not precluded under the Rules.
Xiamen International Bank & Ors v Sing Eng (Pte) Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 228	Singapore	Cited for the definition of issue estoppel.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Order 6 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Order 18 r 19 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Order 21 r 2(6) Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Order 21 r 4 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Order 92 r 4 Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Automatic discontinuance
Reinstatement
Abuse of process
Res judicata
Issue estoppel
Interlocutory judgment
Co-surety
Guarantee
Contribution

15.2 Keywords

Discontinuance
Res Judicata
Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure
Singapore Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Procedure	80
Civil Practice	75
Guarantee	60
Estoppel	40
Commercial Disputes	30
Crossclaims	25

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Discontinuance
Abuse of Process