Teo Han Siang v Lim Eng Keong
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Wee Yen Jean |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | 1forAll Law LLC, Parwani Law LLC, Lim Ming Yi, Vijai Dharamdas Parwani |
Source: [2026] SGHCR 12, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (4)
Case Significance
Teo Han Siang v Lim Eng Keong [2026] SGHCR 12 is a High Court Registrar decision by AR Wee Yen Jean, delivered on 15 April 2026, granting a defendant's application to strike out the claimant's suit as an abuse of process. Teo Han Siang sued Lim Eng Keong and Ecube Auto Credit Pte Ltd for repayment of sums he characterised as loans, relying on communications and documents in support, but he had previously filed affidavits in separate court proceedings stating those same payments were investments — not loans — and that no debt was owed. AR Wee Yen Jean struck out the claim under O 9 r 16 of the Rules of Court 2021 on abuse-of-process and interests-of-justice grounds, with Lim Ming Yi of 1forAll Law LLC appearing for the claimant and Vijai Dharamdas Parwani of Parwani Law LLC for the defendant.
Summary
Teo Han Siang sued Lim Eng Keong for repayment of several alleged loans totalling over S$150,000, claiming the payments were loans for land-flipping projects in Lombok, Indonesia. The key issue was whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process, given that Teo had filed affidavits in prior proceedings stating the same payments were investments rather than loans. The court allowed the striking-out application under O 9 r 16 of the Rules of Court 2021, finding Teo's inconsistent sworn positions constituted an abuse of process, and ordered him to pay indemnity costs of S$25,000.
Why did the High Court strike out the claim in Teo Han Siang v Lim Eng Keong ([2026] SGHCR 12)?
AR Wee Yen Jean struck out Teo Han Siang's loan repayment claim on 15 April 2026 because Teo had previously filed affidavits in separate proceedings stating the same payments were investments, not loans. The court found this inconsistency made the present suit an abuse of process under O 9 r 16 of the Rules of Court 2021.
Cases Cited (6)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Legal concepts & references
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHCR 12)