Tee Kim Leng & 6 Ors v Hong Kah Ing

[2024] SGHCR 13 High Court Registrar 18 November 2024 • HC/S 947/2021 ( HC/SUM 2175/2024,HC/SUM 2399/2024,HC/SUM 2176/2024 ) • 32 min read

8 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court Registrar
Decided	18 November 2024
Judge	Gerome Goh Teng Jun
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	David Lim & Partners LLP, WongPartnership LLP, Chan Wai Yee Rachel, Chng Zi Zhao Joel, Felicia Soong Wanyi, G Kiran, Joshua Ang Zhao Neng, Koong Len Sheng, Qiu Ziyun Joanna

Source: [2024] SGHCR 13, High Court Registrar, decided 18 November 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Costs — Security — Whether the foreign plaintiffs ought to pay security for costs Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Whether summary judgment ought to be granted on the plaintiffs’ claims Civil Procedure — Striking out — Whether the plaintiffs’ claims for breach of contract ought to be struck out for having no reasonable cause of action, being frivolous or vexatious or an abuse of process

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Gerome Goh Teng Jun Delivered

Counsel (9)

David Lim & Partners LLP Firm WongPartnership LLP Firm Chan Wai Yee Rachel Counsel Plaintiff Chng Zi Zhao Joel Counsel Defendant Felicia Soong Wanyi Counsel Defendant G Kiran Counsel Defendant Joshua Ang Zhao Neng Counsel Plaintiff Koong Len Sheng Counsel Plaintiff Qiu Ziyun Joanna Counsel Defendant

Parties (8)

Alvin Lee Sze Chang Plaintiff Hong Kah Ing Defendant Lee Kien Han Plaintiff Phang Soon Mun Plaintiff Tee Chor Leong Plaintiff Tee Kim Leng Plaintiff Tee Yee Koon Plaintiff Toh Yew Keat Plaintiff

Case Significance

Tee Kim Leng and others v Hong Kah Ing [2024] SGHCR 13 was decided in the General Division of the High Court on 13 November 2024 by Assistant Registrar Gerome Goh Teng Jun in Suit No 947 of 2021 (HC/S 947/2021), addressing Summons Nos 2175, 2176 and 2399 of 2024. The suit was brought by seven plaintiffs — Tee Kim Leng, Tee Chor Leong, Toh Yew Keat, Lee Kien Han, Tee Yee Koon, Phang Soon Mun and Alvin Lee Sze Chang — against the defendant Hong Kah Ing for breach of contract arising out of the defendant's failure to transfer 18,000,000 ordinary shares (the "Repayment Shares") in the issued and paid up share capital of Silkroad Nickel Ltd to the first to third plaintiffs in equal proportion. The three applications raised whether the foreign plaintiffs ought to furnish security for costs under O 23 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2014, whether summary judgment ought to be granted on the plaintiffs' claims, and whether the claims for breach of contract ought to be struck out as disclosing no reasonable cause of action or being frivolous, vexatious or an abuse of process.

Summary

In the General Division of the High Court, seven plaintiffs sued the defendant, Hong Kah Ing, for breach of contract arising from his alleged failure to transfer 18,000,000 ordinary shares in Silkroad Nickel Ltd to the first three plaintiffs. Three applications were before the court: the defendant's application for security for costs, the defendant's application to strike out the statement of claim and remove the fourth to seventh plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs' application for summary judgment. Assistant Registrar Gerome Goh Teng Jun dismissed all three applications, making no order as to costs for the striking-out and summary judgment applications and fixing costs of $2,800 for the security application to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiffs.

What was the dispute in Tee Kim Leng v Hong Kah Ing [2024] SGHCR 13?

The seven plaintiffs sued Hong Kah Ing for breach of contract over the defendant's failure to transfer 18,000,000 ordinary shares in Silkroad Nickel Ltd, the "Repayment Shares", to the first to third plaintiffs in equal proportion. The decision addressed security for costs, summary judgment and striking out.

What applications did the court consider in Tee Kim Leng v Hong Kah Ing ([2024] SGHCR 13)?

Assistant Registrar Gerome Goh Teng Jun considered three summonses: whether the foreign plaintiffs should furnish security for costs under O 23 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2014, whether summary judgment should be granted, and whether the breach of contract claims should be struck out.