Andrew Cheah Kim Wee & Anor v Low Xiang Ping Jane

Andrew Cheah Kim Wee & Anor v Low Xiang Ping Jane

The strike‑out application was dismissed because the impugned portions of the counterclaim were not plainly unsustainable or abusive on their face, some pleaded matters were relevant to claimed heads of damage, lay litigant indulgence was warranted, and striking them out would not obviate the need for trial or materially simplify issues; injunctive limbs were either abandoned, legally superfluous but harmless, or potentially maintainable under the Protection from Harassment Act subject to procedural permissions.

Citation
[2026] SGDC 92
Parties
Claimant and Defendant in Counterclaim: Andrew Cheah Kim Wee; Claimant and Defendant in Counterclaim: Artisan Aesthetic & Plastic Surgery Pte Ltd; Defendant and Claimant in Counterclaim: Low Xiang Ping Jane
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
12 March 2026
Case Number
DC/OC 1505/2024 ( DC/SUM 2467/2025 )
Procedural Posture
District Court Originating Claim (originating Claim No 1505 of 2024; Summons No 2467 of 2025) / Interlocutory Strike‑out Application (summons Hearing)
Outcome
Application by the claimants to strike out portions of the counterclaim dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Striking Out, Justification Defence, Counterclaim, Emotional Distress Damages, Abuse of Process, Lay Litigant Indulgence, Costs, Res Judicata
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Defamation Tort Injunctions Statutory Harassment Medical Negligence Striking Out Justification Defence +6 more

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Cheah Kim Wee

Claimant and Defendant in Counterclaim

Artisan Aesthetic & Plastic Surgery Pte Ltd

Claimant and Defendant in Counterclaim

Low Xiang Ping Jane

Defendant and Claimant in Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

District Court Originating Claim (originating Claim No 1505 of 2024; Summons No 2467 of 2025) / Interlocutory Strike‑out Application (summons Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether specified portions of the defendant's counterclaim should be struck out for being untrue, legally unsustainable or an abuse of process
  2. 2 Whether a head of damages for emotional distress caused by the lawsuit and alleged medical malpractice is recognisable at law
  3. 3 Whether pleadings by a self‑represented litigant that contain evidence and opinion should be struck out or afforded indulgence

Ratio Decidendi

The strike‑out application was dismissed because the impugned portions of the counterclaim were not plainly unsustainable or abusive on their face, some pleaded matters were relevant to claimed heads of damage, lay litigant indulgence was warranted, and striking them out would not obviate the need for trial or materially simplify issues; injunctive limbs were either abandoned, legally superfluous but harmless, or potentially maintainable under the Protection from Harassment Act subject to procedural permissions.

Court Disposition

Application by the claimants to strike out portions of the counterclaim dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application by the claimants to strike out portions of the counterclaim dismissed with costs