A THREE-YEAR legal bid by Singapore’s fallen oil tycoon Lim Oon Kuin and his family to block Rajah & Tann Singapore (R&T) from acting for the court-appointed managers and liquidators of two companies under the Hin Leong group suffered a setback on Tuesday (Aug 15) after the court dismissed their appeals.

Judicial Commissioner Goh Yihan, in a written judgment, said: “I dismiss all four appeals before me.”

In mid-2020, Lim, better known as OK Lim, together with his two children Evan Lim Chee Meng and Lim Huey Ching, sought orders to restrain R&T from advising and acting for the judicial managers (JMs) and liquidators of Hin Leong Trading (HLT) and Ocean Tankers.

In seeking the injunction against the law firm, the Lims said that R&T had, from the early 1990s, represented them and the companies, and had therefore gained crucial knowledge about them, putting the law firm in a position of “unfair superiority”, as was revealed in a written judgment dated Apr 4, 2022 by Justice of the Court of Appeal Judith Prakash.

The Lims therefore saw the need to protect confidential information and documents that had been disclosed to R&T in the past – information that could be relevant to the court-appointed managers.

R&T had argued that any information acquired in the course of the alleged long history between them was not part of their case, and that it had suggested that the Lims appoint their own lawyer. The law firm also said it did not unacceptably “change sides” by acting for the JMs of the companies.

GET BT IN YOUR INBOX DAILY

Start and end each day with the latest news stories and analyses delivered straight to your inbox.

Sign UpVIEW ALL

In his written judgement on Tuesday, Judicial Commissioner Goh pointed out that the Lims did not show that they sustained losses personally or that they would seek compensation for any alleged breach of confidence arising from R&T’s conduct.

Last August, both parties attempted to resolve their dispute, the judgment revealed. When this failed, R&T took steps to disengage from acting for HLT and Ocean Tankers, as well as their respective liquidators. The firm then wrote to Lim’s solicitors to inform them of this; it also offered to pay the costs of the proceedings to the family, on a without-admission-of-liability basis.

When the Lims did not give a substantive response, R&T filed applications to strike out the Lim’s originating summons for the injunctions.

The Lims then filed “Amendment Applications” in October last year that sought, not only to maintain the claim for a final injunctive relief against R&T, but also fresh reliefs. The judicial commissioner described these as “not only extensive in number, but also fundamentally alter the cause of action against the respondent”.

R&T accused the Lims of using the proposed amendments in the applications to “fish” for information and documents that may impact their defences in other proceedings.

The firm also said the proposed amendments were “fundamentally flawed”, given that the Lims have been offered – and already obtained – the relief they sought.

The Assistant Registrar (AR) disallowed the Lim’s amendment applications on the basis that they constituted an abuse of the court’s process. The AR also granted the striking out applications by R&T. The Lims appealed.

The judicial commissioner wrote: “In my judgment, the amendment applications should be dismissed. I therefore agree with the learned AR’s decision...”

He deemed that the applications were calculated to “vex” R&T with “pointless litigation founded on underlying issues” that have remained the same since the proceedings began three years ago. 

“The timing of the amendment applications shortly after the applicants obtained relief is disingenuous,” he added.

The judicial commissioner also ruled in favour of R&T’s application to strike out the suits.