[2024] SGHC(A) 33, CHEN QIMING v HUTTONS ASIA PTE. LTD. & 2 Ors - Judgment, Outcome & Holding

Key facts

Court	High Court (Appellate Division)
Decided	7 November 2024
Judge	See Kee Oon
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Outcome	Appeal allowed
Counsel	Fervent Chambers LLC, Withers KhattarWong LLP, Clarence Lun Yaodong, Lim Chong Hian, Lin Hui Yin Sharon

Source: [2024] SGHC(A) 33, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 7 November 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Stay of proceedings — Appeal

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

See Kee Oon Delivered

Counsel (5)

Fervent Chambers LLC Firm Withers KhattarWong LLP Firm Clarence Lun Yaodong Counsel Respondent Lim Chong Hian Counsel Applicant Lin Hui Yin Sharon Counsel Applicant

Parties (4)

Huttons Asia Pte Ltd Applicant Chen Qiming Respondent Ong Jianlong Applicant Wu Lisha Respondent

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

7 November 2024

Case summary

Huttons Asia Pte Ltd and another v Chen Qiming [2024] SGHC(A) 33

Appellate Division of the High Court — Civil Appeal No 40 of 2024 (Summons No 41 of 2024)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court (delivered by Justice See Kee Oon):

Outcome: The Appellate Division of the High Court allowed the application to stay the appeal pending payment of the costs below. The court exercised the power stipulated in O 21 r 2(6) of the Rules of Court 2021, because of the appellant’s attempts to evade payment, as well as the possibility that the respondents may have to enforce the costs order overseas.

Pertinent and significant points of the judgment

• Under the Rules of Court 2021, the court no longer had to rely on its inherent powers to stay an appeal pending payment of the costs below. This was because O 21 r 2(6) expressly stipulated that the court had this power. This was a new provision not previously found in the ROC 2014. Given this express power, less weight should be placed on pre-ROC 2021 cases, where the threshold was pegged at “special or exceptional circumstances”. This threshold was no longer applicable under O 21 r 2(6) of the ROC 2021, where the court may stay an appeal pending payment of the costs below, provided that the party has refused or neglected to pay the ordered costs: at [21], [23]–[24], [29].

Background to the application

1 This was an application by the first and second respondents (the “respondents”) in AD/CA 40/2024 (“AD 40”). They had succeeded before a Judge of the General Division of the High Court (the “Judge”) in defending the underlying suit, HC/S 234/2022 (“Suit 234”), which the appellant had commenced against them after a property transaction gone wrong. On 21 June 2024, the Judge awarded the respondents costs of $120,000 (all-in) by way of a consent order (the “Costs Order”).

2 To date, the appellant has not complied with the Costs Order. It was the respondents’ case that they would face difficulty enforcing the Costs Order, in particular because the appellant was a foreign national with no known assets in Singapore.

The Appellate Division’s decision

3 Under the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) (the “ROC 2014”), special or exceptional circumstances were required before the court would invoke its inherent powers under O 92 r 4 to stay an appeal pending payment of the costs below. The following two situations did not amount to special or exceptional circumstances: (a) that an appellant had the ability to pay the costs below but had not done so; and (b) that enforcement proceedings would have to be commenced overseas against a judgment debtor: at [21].

4 However, under the Rules of Court 2021 (the “ROC 2021”), the court no longer had to rely on its inherent powers, because O 21 r 2(6) expressly stipulated that the court had the power to stay an appeal pending payment of the costs below. This was a new provision not previously found in the ROC 2014. Given this express power, less weight should be placed on pre-ROC 2021 cases, where the threshold was pegged at “special or exceptional circumstances”. This threshold was no longer applicable under O 21 r 2(6) of the ROC 2021, where the court may stay an appeal pending payment of the costs below, provided that the party has refused or neglected to pay the ordered costs: at [23]–[24], [29].

5 The court granted the respondents’ application, primarily for the following three reasons. First, the facts suggested that the appellant was evading payment. His solicitors had refused to accept service for an order for examination of judgment debtor against the appellant, on the basis that they had no instructions to do so, but they had not explained why they lacked instructions. Second, although the appellant asserted that his finances had not been stable in recent times, no evidence was adduced to support this assertion. Third, it appeared that the respondents would have to enforce the Costs Order overseas and would face difficulty doing so. The respondents may not know the appellant’s current residential address, which the appellant had blatantly avoided disclosing. The irresistible inference was that he was seeking to impede any possible attempts to enforce the Costs Order: at [31], [34], [36].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.

What was decided in Huttons Asia Pte Ltd v Chen Qiming [2024] SGHC(A) 33?

See Kee Oon JAD of the Appellate Division allowed Summons No 41 of 2024, staying Civil Appeal No 40 of 2024 pending the appellant's payment of $120,000 in costs owed under a consent order from Suit No 234 of 2022, adjourning the appeal that had been fixed for November 2024.

Why was the appeal stayed in [2024] SGHC(A) 33?

The respondents Huttons Asia Pte Ltd and Ong Jianlong, who had won Suit No 234 of 2022 with a consent costs order of $120,000, applied to stay the appeal because those costs were unpaid. See Kee Oon JAD allowed the stay on 15 October 2024 pending payment.