Hii Yii Ann and Alliance Lumber (PNG) Limited vs Tiong Thai King and Everrise Cooperation Pte Ltd

This case concerned an application for further and better particulars of the Defence and Counterclaim in a commercial logging dispute between Hii Yii Ann, Alliance Lumber (PNG) Limited, Tiong Thai King, and Everrise Cooperation Pte Ltd.

TLDR:

• Claimants sought further particulars of the Defence and Counterclaim.
• First Defendant argued that the particulars provided were sufficient.
• The court ruled on the necessity of further particulars for various categories of claims.
• Further particulars were ordered for specific categories, while others were deemed sufficient.

The Claimants, Hii Yii Ann and Alliance Lumber (PNG) Limited, filed an application for further and better particulars of the Defence and Counterclaim against the Defendants, Tiong Thai King and Everrise Cooperation Pte Ltd. The dispute arose from an alleged breach of a logging agreement and ancillary contracts related to timber concessions in Papua New Guinea.

Hii Yii Ann, a businessman in Singapore, controlled companies holding timber concessions in Papua New Guinea, including Alliance Lumber (PNG) Limited. Tiong Thai King, a businessman in Malaysia, and Everrise Cooperation Pte Ltd, a company incorporated in Singapore, were involved in managing the business collaboration between the parties. The Claimants alleged that the First Defendant breached the logging agreement by failing to extract the guaranteed annual minimum volume of timber.

The Claimants sought further particulars on the First Defendant's Defence, which were initially provided but deemed inadequate by the Claimants. The First Defendant declined to provide additional particulars, leading to this application. The court reviewed the application and the principles governing the requirement for particulars, emphasizing the need for clarity and the prevention of surprise at trial.

In the ruling, the court addressed four main categories of particulars sought by the Claimants: implied terms, mistake, breach of obligations/delay/prevention, and damages. For implied terms, the court found that the particulars provided were adequate, as the necessity of a valid permit for the First Defendant to perform its obligations was sufficiently clear. However, for the category of mistake, the court ordered the First Defendant to provide further particulars, including the identity of the person who discovered the mistake and the circumstances surrounding it.

Regarding breach of obligations, the court ordered further particulars related to the timing and extent of the impact of COVID-19 on logging operations and the quality of logs extracted. The court also required particulars of the alleged common understanding and intention of the parties regarding the logging agreement. However, the court declined to order further particulars for the category of damages, stating that heads of damage could be dealt with in the evidence stage.

The court emphasized that the particulars were necessary to inform the Claimants of the case they had to meet and to prevent surprise at trial. The ruling balanced the need for adequate particulars with the avoidance of unnecessary detail that could bog down the proceedings.

Ultimately, the court ordered the First Defendant to provide specific further particulars as outlined in the Summary Table provided by the parties. The questions of costs were reserved for the determination of the originating application.

Legal representatives: Choy Chee Yean (Trenchant Law LLC) for the Claimants; Ong Boon Hwee William, Xu Jiaxiong, Daryl, Su Jin Chandran, Nicholas Kam Xuan Wei, and Matthew Soo Yee (Allen & Gledhill LLP) for the First Defendant.

Judicial Panel: Thomas Bathurst IJ

Case Citation Reference: [2024] SGHC(I) 16