Samwoh Asphalt Premix Pte Ltd v Sum Cheong Piling Pte Ltd and Another

[3] Mr Sureshan for the first defendants submitted that the amount was excessive because the second defendants were not involved in the merits of the dispute between the plaintiffs and the first defendants. No specific allegation or claim was made by any party against the second defendants and they, in turn, made no allegation or claim against anyone. The only function for them was to make payment under the bond should be plaintiffs’ application for an injunction against the first defendants fail. In the event, the plaintiffs succeeded and the second defendants were not required to make payment. Hence, Mr Sureshan’s main argument before me was that in those circumstances, the second defendants were virtually nominal parties whose only work was to decide whether to pay on the bond when called to do so. The legal and factual disputes were between the plaintiffs and the first defendants.

[4] Mr Christopher Chong appeared on behalf of the second defendants. He conceded that the second defendants eventually adopted a neutral position but, he argued, they were able to do so only after the case was properly considered and on advice by their solicitors. He submitted that counsel on behalf of the second defendants made a submission before the Court of Appeal in respect of the position of the bondsman and in particular as to how they ought to be protected. At the hearing before the Court of Appeal the second defendants filed a bundle of authorities with two cases and an extract of O 57 r 3.

[5] In conclusion, Mr Chong referred to the written judgment of the Court of Appeal at page 14 where the court stated that it would allow the appeal and noted that the second defendants had substantially reimbursed the plaintiffs money paid by the latter to them consequent upon the discharge of the interim injunction by the judge at first instance. The portion of the judgment now relied upon by Mr Chong in support is at [22]:

The judgment went on to declare that: