W. POWER GROUP EOOD v MINGYANG WIND POWER (INTERNATIONAL) CO. LTD

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC(I) 29 consider?

The judgment refers to Limitation Act (Cap 163). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC(I) 29 Singapore International Commercial Court 15 October 2024 • SIC/OA 2/2023 ( SIC/SUM 15/2024 ) • 63 min read

20 cases cited (18 SG, 2 foreign) Cited by 2 cases

Key facts

Court	Singapore International Commercial Court
Decided	15 October 2024
Judge	Thomas Bathurst
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Allen & Gledhill LLP, CTLC Law Corporation, Han Wah Teng, Ivan Lim Jun Rui, Seth Yeo Ao-Wen, William Ong Boon Hwee, Wong Pei Ting

Source: [2024] SGHC(I) 29, Singapore International Commercial Court, decided 15 October 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking out Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Thomas Bathurst Delivered

Counsel (7)

Allen & Gledhill LLP Firm CTLC Law Corporation Firm Han Wah Teng Counsel Claimant Ivan Lim Jun Rui Counsel Defendant Seth Yeo Ao-Wen Counsel Defendant William Ong Boon Hwee Counsel Defendant Wong Pei Ting Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. Ltd Defendant W. Power Group EOOD Claimant

Case Significance

In W. Power Group EOOD v Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. Ltd [2024] SGHC(I) 29, the Singapore International Commercial Court determined a striking-out application and an associated application to amend in Originating Application No 2 of 2023 (Summons No 15 of 2024). The claimant, W. Power Group EOOD ("WPG"), a company registered in Bulgaria, had brought proceedings against the defendant, Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co Ltd ("Ming Yang"), a company incorporated in Hong Kong, claiming damages for breach of a Joint Venture Agreement entered into to develop two wind farm projects in Bulgaria, described as Project 1 and Project 2.

By SIC/SUM 15/2024, the defendant sought orders that the whole of the Statement of Claim, or alternatively paragraph 13(a), be struck out. At the hearing on 28 May 2024, counsel for the claimant made an oral application for leave to amend the Statement of Claim, and Thomas Bathurst IJ gave directions for a draft to be filed and submissions exchanged so that both applications could be determined together. The matter was argued on 28 May and 8 July 2024, with judgment reserved and delivered on 15 October 2024. CTLC Law Corporation, with Han Wah Teng, acted for the claimant, while Allen & Gledhill LLP, including William Ong Boon Hwee, Ivan Lim Jun Rui, Seth Yeo Ao-Wen and Wong Pei Ting, acted for the defendant.

[2024] SGHC(I) 29 explained

W. POWER GROUP EOOD v MINGYANG WIND POWER (INTERNATIONAL) CO. LTD ([2024] SGHC(I) 29) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Singapore International Commercial Court on 15 October 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 2 other reported Singapore judgments, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC(I) 29 about?

W. POWER GROUP EOOD v MINGYANG WIND POWER (INTERNATIONAL) CO. LTD ([2024] SGHC(I) 29) is a Singapore International Commercial Court decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Striking out” and “Civil Procedure — Pleadings — Amendment”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC(I) 29 consider?

The judgment refers to Limitation Act (Cap 163). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGHC(I) 29 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 149 and [2024] SGHCR 5. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2024] SGHC(I) 29?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC(I) 29 has been cited by 2 later reported Singapore judgments. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE

15 October 2024

Case summary

W. Power Group EOOD v Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. Ltd [2024) SGHC(I) 29
SIC/OA 2/2023 (SIC/SUM 15/2024)

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

Decision of the Singapore International Commercial Court (delivered by Thomas Bathurst IJ):

Outcome: SICC refuses W. Power Group EOOD’s (“WPG”) oral application for leave to amend the Statement of Claim, orders that the original Statement of Claim be struck out in its entirety and orders that WPG’s claim be dismissed in its entirety, and judgment be entered in favour of the defendant, Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co. Ltd (“Ming Yang”).

Background

1. WPG, a Bulgarian company, and Ming Yang, a Chinese wind turbine manufacturer, entered into a joint venture agreement in July 2011 to establish a joint venture company for the purpose of developing two wind farm projects. In SIC/OA 2/2023 (“OA 2”) WPG claims Ming Yang breached its obligations under the joint venture agreement essentially by failing to secure financing for one of the two projects ( “Project 2”) and by withdrawing a performance guarantee for the same project. Ming Yang’s Defence alleged, among other matters, that WPG’s claim was time-barred.

2. Ming Yang applied in SIC/SUM 15/2024 seeking orders pursuant to O 16 r 4(1)(a), (b) and (c) of the Singapore International Commercial Court Rules 2021 (“SICC Rules”) that the whole of the Statement of Claim in the proceedings or, alternatively, paragraph 13(a) of the Statement of Claim be struck out. Ming Yang contends that any cause of action that WPG had arose at the latest on 27 August 2012 when Ming Yang communicated to WPG that it would not proceed with Project 2. Ming Yang also submits to the extent WPG’s claim made is for damages for the inability to exercise the rights to sell out of the project as provided by clause 1.3 of Annex 3 to the joint venture agreement dated 9 January 2012, that right resided in a subsidiary of WPG (known as “WP3”) and not WPG.

3. At the hearing of the Summons, recognising the difficulty with the original pleading, counsel for WPG made an oral application for leave to amend the Statement of Claim. The Court gave directions for a draft Statement of Claim to be filed and that the parties exchange submissions on the question of whether leave should be granted. It was agreed that the Court would determine both the striking out application and the application for leave without a further oral hearing.

4. Among other amendments, the draft Amended Statement of Claim seeks to add WP3 as an additional claimant. It also by the draft paragraph 10A pleads a decision by the parties in 2012 to withdraw the bank guarantee coupled with an assurance by Ming Yang that it was not stepping back from Project 2 and a suggestion that Project 2 be done in a different way. It pleads that Project 2 was postponed to restructure the parties’ plan for it before recommencing it. Finally, it pleads that Ming Yang breached the terms of the joint venture agreement by its decision in 2020 to discontinue Project 2 “after many years of reassurances given to [WPG] of its commitment to build Project 2 at the right time”.

The court’s decision

5. The limitation period for suing on the breaches pleaded in paragraph 11 of the Statement of Claim had expired well prior to the commencement of the proceedings on 16 June 2022. There were no later breaches alleged in the Statement of Claim. The Statement of Claim ought to be struck out in its entirety on the ground under O 16 r 4(1)(b) for being an abuse of process of the Court or on the alternative ground under O 16 r 4(1)(c) that it is in the interests of justice for the claim to be struck out: at [77].

6. The loss pleaded in paragraph 13(a) of the Statement of Claim included the inability of WPG to exercise its rights under clause 1.3 of Annex 3. No such right resided in WPG and no facts were pleaded to establish WPG’s entitlement to sue for such damages: at [78].

7. No application has been made under O 10 rr 6–7 of the SICC Rules that the Court join WP3 to the action conditional upon it providing its written consent. No explanation was given as to why consent had not been supplied and why notwithstanding WP3 should be joined. There was nothing to suggest that the Board of WP3 consented to such joinder. The Court doubted that it had the power under the general powers of the Court contained in O 1 r 11(1) of the SICC Rules as contended by WPG to order the joinder of WP3 despite the fact its written consent had not been filed: at [157], [159] and [161].

8. The effect of the draft Amended Statement of Claim was to entirely abandon the claims made in the original Statement of Claim. The claims pleaded made entirely different allegations of breach and the Court found that WPG was seeking to have a second bite at the cherry: at [160].

9. The onus was on WPG to prove that the date of accrual of its claim fell within the limitation period. Paragraph 10A of the draft Amended Statement of Claim, which was critical to WPG’s case, was of such a vague and general nature that it was impossible for Ming Yang to properly investigate the allegations therein, let alone plead to them. WPG failed to properly particularise the allegations made in paragraph 10A: at [172]–[175].

10. Paragraph 10C of the draft Amended Statement of Claim pleaded further discussions over a period of seven years between 2012 and 2019 and alleged further assurances given by Ming Yang to WPG. There was insufficient particularisation of the matters alleged therein: at [178].

11. As the Court refused the application for leave to amend the original Statement of Claim and ordered that the original Statement of Claim should be struck out, it followed that the proceedings should be dismissed: at [185].

This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s judgment. 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 judgment.

What was the dispute in W. Power Group EOOD v Ming Yang Wind Power [2024] SGHC(I) 29?

The claimant, W. Power Group EOOD of Bulgaria, sued Ming Yang Wind Power (International) Co Ltd of Hong Kong for damages for breach of a Joint Venture Agreement to develop two wind farm projects in Bulgaria, described as Project 1 and Project 2, in the Singapore International Commercial Court.

What applications did the Singapore International Commercial Court consider in [2024] SGHC(I) 29?

By SIC/SUM 15/2024 the defendant sought to strike out the whole Statement of Claim or paragraph 13(a), and at the 28 May 2024 hearing the claimant orally applied for leave to amend. Thomas Bathurst IJ determined both applications together, delivering judgment on 15 October 2024.

Statutes Cited

Limitation Act (Cap 163) Cases on this Act →

s 6(1)

Cases Cited (20)

SG (4)

[2011] SGHC 249 [2022] SGHC 192 [2024] SGHC 149 [2024] SGHCR 5

SLR (14)

[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 [2004] 2 SLR(R) 173 [2006] 3 SLR(R) 881 [2007] 2 SLR(R) 869 [2012] 1 SLR 457 [2012] 4 SLR 546 [2015] 1 SLR 875 [2016] 2 SLR 1 [2017] 3 SLR 559 [2018] 1 SLR 894 [2018] 5 SLR 117 [2020] 2 SLR 272 [2022] 2 SLR 1018 [2024] 4 SLR 540

UK (1)

[1987] AC 189

MY (1)

[1988] 1 MLJ 64