SANG CHEOL WOO v CHARLES CHOI SPACKMAN & 8 Ors
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Kwek Mean Luck |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure, Abuse of Process |
| Counsel | Breakpoint LLC, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, WongPartnership LLP, Fan Wai Leong, Benson, Lee Tat Weng Daniel, Lin Weiqi Wendy, Mark Tang Yu Zhong, Wayne Yeo |
Source: [2024] SGHC 299, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (8)
Case Significance
Sang Cheol Woo v Spackman, Charles Choi and others [2024] SGHC 299 was decided by Kwek Mean Luck J in the General Division of the High Court on 26 November 2024, with judgment reserved after a hearing on 11 November 2024. The matter arose as Registrar's Appeal No 186 of 2024 within Suit No 211 of 2019, an appeal by the plaintiff Sang Cheol Woo against an Assistant Registrar's decision in HC/SUM 2148/2024 granting the 2nd and 3rd defendants (Kim Jae Seung and Kim So Hee) leave to amend their Defence.
The appeal raised issues spanning Civil Procedure (Amendments) and Abuse of Process (the Riddick principle). The court considered whether "proceedings" under O 20 r 5(1) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) remained afoot where the first trial stage on enforceability of a foreign judgment against the 1st defendant had been determined but the second stage on the 2nd and 3rd defendants' conspiracy liability had not, whether the amendment application was an abuse of process, and whether the principle in Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd applied to non-parties and to documents disclosed when resisting a specific discovery application. The plaintiff was represented by WongPartnership LLP, while the defendants' counsel included Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP and Breakpoint LLC.
[2024] SGHC 299 explained
SANG CHEOL WOO v CHARLES CHOI SPACKMAN & 8 Ors ([2024] SGHC 299) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 26 November 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure and Abuse of Process. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, 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 299 about?
SANG CHEOL WOO v CHARLES CHOI SPACKMAN & 8 Ors ([2024] SGHC 299) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Amendments” and “Abuse of Process — Riddick principle”, 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 299 consider?
The judgment refers to Civil Law Act (Cap 43) and Legal Profession Act (Cap 161). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
How influential is [2024] SGHC 299?
Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 299 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. 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
Sang Cheol Woo, the plaintiff in a suit against Charles Choi Spackman and others, appealed against an assistant registrar's decision granting the second and third defendants leave to amend their defence, raising issues including whether proceedings were still afoot under Order 20 rule 5(1) of the Rules of Court, whether there was an abuse of process, and the application of the Riddick principle. The General Division of the High Court found that the proposed amendments were not factually or legally unsustainable and that allowing them would not cause the plaintiff irreparable prejudice incapable of being compensated by costs. The court dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and directed the parties to file submissions on costs.
What did Sang Cheol Woo v Spackman, Charles Choi and others [2024] SGHC 299 decide?
In [2024] SGHC 299, Kwek Mean Luck J heard Registrar's Appeal No 186 of 2024 in Suit No 211 of 2019, an appeal by Sang Cheol Woo against an Assistant Registrar granting the 2nd and 3rd defendants leave to amend their Defence, addressing the Riddick principle and Order 20 amendments.
What is the Riddick principle issue raised in [2024] SGHC 299?
The court in [2024] SGHC 299 considered whether the Riddick principle, from Riddick v Thames Board Mills Ltd, applies to non-parties and to documents disclosed for the purpose of resisting a specific discovery application rather than under compulsion, within an abuse-of-process challenge to a Defence amendment.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (20)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 299)