Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Liu Cheng Chan and others

[1] On 8 February 2017, I delivered my judgment in this action – Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd (In Liquidation) v Liu Cheng Chan and others [2017] SGHC 15 (“the Judgment”). The plaintiff, Parakou Shipping Pte Ltd (In Liquidation), did not succeed in all of its claims against the six defendants; I found each defendant liable for one or more claims.

(a) The 1st to 6th defendants were jointly and severally liable for the plaintiff’s costs in this action.

(b) The 1st defendant, Liu Cheng Chan (“CC Liu”) and the 2nd defendant, Chik Sau Kam (“Chik”) were liable for 90% of the plaintiff’s costs and disbursements. The 3rd defendant, Liu Por, and the 4th defendant, Yang Jianguo (“Yang”) were liable for 80% of the plaintiff’s costs and disbursements. The 5th defendant, Parakou Investment Holdings Pte Ltd (“PIH”) was liable for 70% and the 6th defendant, Parakou Shipmanagement Pte Ltd (“PSMPL”) was liable for 60% of the plaintiff’s costs and disbursements.

(c) The plaintiff’s application in Summons No 1040 of 2017 for a certificate for costs for three solicitors was dismissed.

(d) The plaintiff’s party and party costs was fixed on the standard basis at $600,000 (undiscounted and excluding disbursements). Accordingly, CC Liu and Chik were jointly and severally liable for $540,000, Liu Por and Yang for $480,000, PIH for $420,000 and PSMPL for $360,000. The disbursements were to be fixed by me if not agreed.

(a) Each party was to pay its own costs in respect of the defendants’ applications in Summonses Nos 6150–6152 of 2014 to set aside, or alternatively to vary a Mareva injunction against them.

[6] In this case, the plaintiff claimed that the defendants orchestrated various transactions to strip it of its assets in anticipation of it being put into liquidation. The plaintiff brought a multitude of claims against the defendants with respect to each impugned transaction, including claims based on breaches of fiduciary duties and/or statutory duties of care and skill, breaches of trust, liability to account as constructive trustees, lifting of the corporate veil, and undervalued transactions. The full facts, issues and my findings and decisions are set out in the Judgment.

[11] The plaintiff submitted in the alternative that the discounts to be given should be 5% to CC Liu and Chik, 10% to Liu Por, Yang and PIH, and 15% to PSMPL.

(a) Each of the defendants had failed on the two major issues (referred to in [8] above).

(b) The claims in respect of each impugned transaction differed in complexity and the amounts claimed.

(c) The plaintiff claimed against CC Liu, Chik, Liu Por and Yang in respect of all the impugned transactions. The plaintiff’s claims against PIH involved fewer impugned transactions and PSMPL faced the least number of claims.

[18] However, the conduct of the plaintiff was also a relevant factor under O 59 r 5(b). In my view, the plaintiff had asserted a whole gamut of claims against each defendant quite indiscriminately, instead of being more discerning about the claims that could reasonably be brought against each defendant.