Skip to content
laws.sgby aturio
Grounds publishedDecided 22 Apr 2014
Contents

High Court

Columbia Asia Healthcare Sdn Bhd and another v Hong Hin Kit Edward and another and other suits

Feedback & support

[2014] SGHC 83Case no. Suits No 861 and 862 of 2008 and 964 of 200915 paragraphs

What happened, in plain English

There is no plain-English summary of this judgment yet.

Ask about this judgment

Grounds of decision

Official text from eLitigation

  1. Woo Bih Li J:

  2. [1] I refer to my judgment dated 10 April 2014 (“the Judgment”). It has come to my attention that I should make some formal orders in response to the prayers for relief in the three actions mentioned in the Judgment, although the outcomes are obvious from the Judgment.

  3. [2] For the avoidance of doubt, I state the following in addition to the Judgment. The definitions therein will apply here as well.

  4. Suit 964

  5. [4] The second prayer of the claim by Columbia is addressed by the orders in the Judgment.

  6. [5] I dismiss all the Hongs’ prayers for relief in their counterclaim in Suit 964.

  7. Suit 861

  8. [6] I dismiss PTNM’s counterclaim for damages for allegedly defective servers.

  9. [7] I make no order on the first prayer of the claim against the Hongs in the third party action which is a prayer for a declaration that the claims of Thermal Industries are within the meaning of “Liabilities” as defined in s 2.1.24 of the SSA. The first prayer is unnecessary in the light of the orders made in the Judgment.

  10. [8] The second prayer of the claim against the Hongs is already addressed substantively by the orders made in the Judgment.

  11. [9] I dismiss the third prayer for a declaration that Thermal Industries is the alter ego of Edward Hong. As stated in the Judgment, Thermal Industries is entitled to make its claim whether or not it is controlled by Edward Hong.

  12. [10] I dismiss the Hongs’ counterclaim for an order rectifying s 2.1.24 of the SSA.

  13. Suit 862

  14. [11] I make no order on the first prayer of the claim against the Hongs in the third party action which is a prayer for a declaration that the claims of Thermal International are within the meaning of “Liabilities” in s 2.1.24 of the SSA. The first prayer is unnecessary in the light of the orders made in the Judgment.

  15. [12] The second prayer of the claim against the Hongs is already addressed substantively by the orders made in the Judgment.

  16. [13] I dismiss the third prayer for a declaration that Thermal International is the alter ego of Edward Hong.

  17. [14] I dismiss the Hongs’ counterclaim for an order rectifying s 2.1.24 of the SSA.

  18. General

  19. [15] I amend the beginning of [356(c)] of the Judgment to read as follows:

  20. [16] This supplementary judgment is to take effect from the date of the Judgment.