SK LATERAL RUBBER & PLASTIC TECHNOLOGIES (SUZHOU) CO., LTD v LATERAL SOLUTIONS PTE LTD [2020] SGHC(I) 9 (17 April 2020)

SK LATERAL RUBBER & PLASTIC TECHNOLOGIES (SUZHOU) CO., LTD v LATERAL SOLUTIONS PTE LTD [2020] SGHC(I) 9 (17 April 2020)

Neither the impecuniosity nor foreign plaintiff basis for ordering security for costs was made out. SKL's payment history and evidence did not demonstrate inability to pay costs. The Memorandum of Guidance between Singapore and China reduces, but does not eliminate, inconvenience of enforcement. SKL's claim is stronger, and substantial overlap exists between claim and counterclaim, reducing justification for security. On balance, it would not be just to order security for costs.

Citation
[2020] SGHC(I) 9
Parties
Plaintiff/counterdefendant: SK Lateral Rubber & Plastic Technologies (Suzhou) Co Ltd; Defendant/counterclaimant: Lateral Solutions Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
17 April 2020
Procedural Posture
Commercial Suit / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
application dismissed
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Costs, Foreign Plaintiff, Impecuniosity, Overlap of Claim and Counterclaim
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Costs Foreign Plaintiff Impecuniosity Overlap of Claim and Counterclaim

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

SK Lateral Rubber & Plastic Technologies (Suzhou) Co Ltd

Plaintiff/counterdefendant

Lateral Solutions Pte Ltd

Defendant/counterclaimant

Procedural Posture

Commercial Suit / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SKL should be ordered to furnish further security for Lateral's costs to the end of trial
  2. 2 Whether SKL is unable to pay Lateral's costs if ordered (impecuniosity basis)
  3. 3 Whether SKL's status as a foreign plaintiff justifies security for costs

Ratio Decidendi

Neither the impecuniosity nor foreign plaintiff basis for ordering security for costs was made out. SKL's payment history and evidence did not demonstrate inability to pay costs. The Memorandum of Guidance between Singapore and China reduces, but does not eliminate, inconvenience of enforcement. SKL's claim is stronger, and substantial overlap exists between claim and counterclaim, reducing justification for security. On balance, it would not be just to order security for costs.

Court Disposition

application dismissed

Orders

  • SKL is entitled to its costs of the application.
  • Parties invited to agree on costs amount; if no agreement, written submissions to be exchanged and filed within two weeks for decision on papers.