Judgment Header
Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175
Loading…
[2015] SGHC 175
General Division of the High Court of Singapore9 Jul 2015Suit No 2 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 96 of 2015)
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 11 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“mely, cause of action estoppel, issue estoppel and the defence of abuse of process (Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 (“Goh Nellie”) at [17]-[19]; Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175 (“Zhang Run Zi”) at [35]). Although I did not find cause of action estoppel or issue estoppel to be appl”
“decided in proceedings between the same parties by a court of competent jurisdiction (TT International at [99] citing Thoday v Thoday [1964] P 181 at 197). In Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175 at [40], George Wei J distilled the elements of cause of action estoppel as follows:”
“inst the Vendors for misrepresentation and breach of contract, and this was struck out by the court on the basis of issue estoppel. The decision is reported at Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175. Zhang’s appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.”
“that in deciding whether or not an issue had been raised and argued, the court must be satisfied that there was “actual investigation of [the] point” (see also Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175 at [55]). In this regard, it is permissible for the court to refer to the pleadings and the evidence in”
“In Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175 (“Zhang Run Zi”) at [67], George Wei JC (as he then was) set out the requirements for cause of action estoppel as follows:”
“(ie, preventing the plaintiffs from raising a fundamental issue concerning their rights). At [199], the Tribunal adopted the language used by the High Court in Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175 which was heavily relied upon by both parties in the arbitration and which the Tribunal itself had earli”
“Indeed, the High Court in Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175, citing Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd (in receivership) v Intraco Ltd and others [1992] 2 SLR(R) 382, held (at [42]) that a cause of action could also refer to “the facts which the plaintiff must prove”
“the plaintiff must prove in order to get a decision in his favour” (see Salmizan bin Abdullah v Crapper, Ian Anthony [2024] 5 SLR 257 (“Salmizan”) at [31] and Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175 at [42], citing Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd (in receivership) v Intraco Ltd and others [1992] 2 SLR(R) 38”
“f competent jurisdiction, and (c) the earlier judgment was a final and conclusive judgment on the merits (for the requirements of cause of action estoppel, see Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175 (“Zhang Run Zi”) at [40]). The applicability of the doctrine of cause of action estoppel therefore turne”
“In the context of cause of action estoppel, “cause of action” refers to “the material facts upon which the plaintiff’s claims for relief were based”: Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng [2015] SGHC 175 (“Zhang Run Zi”) at [43]. As the court explained there:”
“toppel are evident from the significant overlap in the elements which a party who seeks to rely on either type has to establish. Those elements are as follows (Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175 (“Zhang Run Zi”) at [40] and [54]):”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another [2015] SGHC 175
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit No 2 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 96 of 2015)
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2015-07-09
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.