Progress ABMS v Progress Welded Mesh: Summary Judgment & Counterclaim in Construction Materials Sale

Progress Welded Mesh Sdn Bhd sued Progress ABMS Pte Ltd in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for $476,463.16 for the sale and delivery of construction materials. The Assistant Registrar granted summary judgment for $429,775.72. Progress ABMS appealed, and Hri Kumar Nair J dismissed the appeal. The court found Progress ABMS's counterclaims for breach of a distributorship agreement and unlawful conspiracy to be implausible and speculative, respectively. The court affirmed the summary judgment and declined to grant a stay of execution.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Summary judgment granted to Progress Welded Mesh for unpaid construction materials. Appeal dismissed; counterclaims deemed implausible and speculative.

1.7 Decision Date

28 January 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Progress ABMS Pte Ltd	Appellant, Defendant	Corporation	Appeal dismissed	Lost	Shehzhadee binte Abdul Rahman of M/S Shehzhadee Law Corporation M. Lukshumayeh of Lukshumayeh Law Corporation
Progress Welded Mesh Sdn Bhd	Respondent, Claimant	Corporation	Judgment for Claimant	Won	Nicholas Leow of Netto & Magin LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Hri Kumar Nair	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Shehzhadee binte Abdul Rahman	M/S Shehzhadee Law Corporation
M. Lukshumayeh	Lukshumayeh Law Corporation
Nicholas Leow	Netto & Magin LLC

4. Facts

Claimant sued Defendant for $476,463.16 for unpaid construction materials.
Defendant claimed it did not admit the sale/delivery of materials or owing the sum.
Defendant counterclaimed for losses from termination of a distributorship agreement.
Defendant counterclaimed for loss of revenue from an unlawful conspiracy.
Claimant produced purchase orders and delivery orders supporting the invoices.
Defendant did not deny signing 48 delivery orders amounting to $377,678.79.
Defendant made a $30,000 part-payment after court proceedings began.

5. Formal Citations

Progress ABMS Pte Ltd v Progress Welded Mesh Sdn Bhd, Originating Claim No 456 of 2023 (Registrar’s Appeal No 272 of 2023), [2024] SGHC 20

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2019-11-01	Claimant supplied materials to the Defendant
2023-02-02	First invoice issued
2023-03-03	Sim incorporated PWM
2023-03-15	Sim resigned from the Defendant
2023-04-03	Last invoice issued
2023-04-06	Ng became a 60% shareholder in PWM
2023-05-01	Defendant commenced action in the District Court (DC/OC 743/2023)
2023-08-01	Defendant made part-payment of $30,000 to the Claimant
2023-09-21	Tan Kean Heong’s Affidavit dated
2023-09-30	Creditor Statement prepared or updated
2023-10-05	Lim Yeow Sung’s Affidavit dated
2024-01-24	Hearing date
2024-01-29	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant did not have a real or bona fide defence and that the counterclaims were implausible and speculative.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Real or bona fide defence
  - Effect of counterclaim
  - Stay of execution
- Related Cases:
  - [2023] SGHC 164
  - [2014] 2 SLR 1342
  - [2015] 1 SLR 325
  - [1992] 1 MLJ 400
  - [2018] 3 SLR 34
Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant failed to establish a plausible case for breach of the Distributorship Agreement because it could not even establish its existence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Oral contract formation
  - Termination of distributorship agreement
Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found the conspiracy claim to be speculative.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unlawful means
  - Diversion of customers
- Related Cases:
  - [2022] 1 SLR 1
  - [2001] 1 SLR(R) 638
Right of Set-Off
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant's counterclaim did not amount to a legal or equitable set-off.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Legal set-off
  - Equitable set-off
- Related Cases:
  - [2023] SGHC 330
  - [2020] 1 SLR 627
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 856

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Unlawful Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Horizon Capital Fund v Ollech David	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 164	Singapore	Guided summary judgment provisions under O. 14 of the Rules of Court (2014 RevEd), continue to apply in respect of applications under O. 9 r. 17 of the Rules of Court 2021
Ritzland Investment Pte Ltd v Grace Management & Consultancy Services Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 1342	Singapore	Cited for the principles to obtain summary judgment, a claimant must first show that he has a prima facie case for his claim(s)
M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 325	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the defendant need only show that there is a triable issue or question or that for some other reason, there ought to be a trial
Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail	Supreme Court of Malaysia	Yes	[1992] 1 MLJ 400	Malaysia	Cited with approval for the principle that the judge has a duty to reject assertions which are equivocal, lacking in precision, inconsistent with undisputed contemporary documents or other statements by the same deponent, or inherently improbable in themselves
Kim Seng Orchid Pte Ltd v Lim Kah Hin	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 34	Singapore	Cited for the four-step framework on the approach to be taken when determining whether summary judgment ought to be given where there is a subsisting counterclaim.
P H Grace Pte Ltd v American Express International Banking Corp	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1986] SGCA 13	Singapore	Cited for the approach to determine whether it is ‘not unreasonably possible’ for the counterclaim of the first defendant to succeed if brought to trial
Beyonics Asia Pacific Ltd and others v Goh Chan Peng	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] 1 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that not all parties to a conspiracy need to be joined
Yap Chwee Khim v American Home Assurance Co	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 638	Singapore	Cited for the principle that not all parties to a conspiracy need to be joined
Re Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (in liquidation)	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 330	Singapore	Cited for the defence of legal set-off requires the counterclaims to be for a liquidated amount
BP Singapore Pte Ltd v Jurong Aromatics Corp Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 1 SLR 627	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in determining whether a counterclaim amounts to an equitable set-off, it need not be the case that the claim and crossclaim arise out of the same contract
Abdul Salam Asanaru Pillai (trading as South Kerala Cashew Exporters) v Nomanbhoy & Sons Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 856	Singapore	Cited with approval for the principle that equitable set-off is available only where “a sufficient degree of closeness is established in the connection between the respective claims”, and where “the respective claims are so closely connected that it would offend one’s sense of fairness or justice to allow one claim to be enforced without regard to the other”
Cheng Poh Building Construction Pte Ltd v First City Builders Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 2 SLR(R) 170	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if the counterclaim is sufficiently plausible and connected to the claimant’s claim, the court may exercise its discretion to stay the execution of the summary judgment until the counterclaim is tried and resolved
Creative Elegance (M) Sdn Bhd v Puay Kim Seng and another	High Court	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR(R) 112	Singapore	Cited for the enforcement of Singapore money judgments in Malaysia is relatively straight-forward given the existing reciprocal enforcement arrangements

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court 2021	Singapore
Rules of Court (2014 RevEd)	Singapore
Reciprocal Enforcement of Judgments Act 1958 (Revised 1972) (No 99 of 1958)	Malaysia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Summary Judgment
Counterclaim
Distributorship Agreement
Unlawful Conspiracy
Construction Materials
Invoices
Delivery Orders
Purchase Orders
Set-off

15.2 Keywords

summary judgment
construction materials
counterclaim
singapore
contract
conspiracy

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Summary Judgement	90
Civil Procedure	75
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means	65
Debt Recovery	60
Contract Law	50
Torts	40

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law
Tort Law
Construction Law