The court determined that a counterclaim cannot relitigate previously decided issues, reinforcing the principle of res judicata and clarifying the inapplicability of the Ladd v. Marshall test to interlocutory matters.

JUDGMENT

(Enclosure 21: Disposal Under O 14A And/Or O 33 r 2: Striking Out Of Defendant's Counterclaim Consequential Upon Grant Of Summary Judgment On The Plaintiff's Claims)

Tee Geok Hock J:

Introduction

[1] At the first stage of the O 14A application, this Court on 10 October 2023 made the following orders for the first stage of encl 21:

(i) Determination of the following issue and or question ("Question of Law"):

(a) Whether the Defendant's Counterclaim in this present suit would be considered to be relitigating similar and or substantially similar issues in respect of the decision of this Court on 12 July 2023 in respect of the Plaintiff's claim against the Defendant?

(b) Upon determination of the above issue and or question, a consequential order deems fit can be made, that if the above issue and or question is answered in the affirmative in favour of the Plaintiff, that the Defendant's Counterclaim against the Plaintiff be dismissed with costs.

[2] In the Defendant's Defence and Counter Claim dated 5 January 2023 (Encl 6). Upon a cursory reading of the Defendant's Counterclaim, apart from the Defendant repeating the Defence, the Defendant had amongst others, alleged that due to the expiry date and the vacuum packaging, the chocolates and/or the goods supplied had become mouldy, hence the allegations of not fit for its purpose and of not merchantable quality.

[3] In the Defendant's Affidavit in Reply affirmed by Choo Chee Shyan on 20 April 2023 (Encl 11) and the Defendant's Written Submission dated 30 May 2023 (Encl 13) in opposing to the Plaintiffs Summary Judgment Application (Encl 9), where the Defendant had amongst others, raised and submitted on the following alleged issues to be tried :

(a) Whether the term stated in the Delivery Note dated 4 July 2022 is a new term introduced unilaterally by the Plaintiff without the Defendant's consent after the agreement has been entered into between the Plaintiff and the Defendant? (refer para 13(b)(viii) of Encl 11 and para 7(viii) of Encl 13).

(b) Whether the terms stated in the delivery note dated 4 July 2022 is enforceable against the Defendant? (refer para 13(b)(ix) of Encl 11 and para 7(ix) of Encl 13);

(c) Whether the Plaintiff has breached the implied condition of the agreement and s 16 of the Sales of Goods Act 1957 when the said Goods supplied by the Plaintiff have been found to be mouldy? (refer para 13(b)(x) of Encl 11 and paras 6(b)(iv), 6.3(a)-(l), and 7(x) of Encl 13);

(d) Whether the Plaintiffs claim can be disposed of through summary judgment even though the Defendant has filed a counterclaim where the facts of the Defendant's counterclaim are closely related and interwoven/intertwine to the facts of the Plaintiffs claim? (refer para 13(b)(xi) of Encl 11 and paras 6(b)(v), 6.4(a)-(g), and 7(xi) of Encl 13);

[4] On 12 July 2023 this Court granted summary judgment in favour of the Plaintiff for the unpaid value of goods sold and supplied.

[5] After the grant of summary judgment, the Plaintiff vide encl 21 applied for O 14A and/or O 33 r 2 disposal and for consequential order that the Defendant's counterclaim be struck out.

[6] In opposing the Plaintiff's Enclosure 21 application, the Defendant filed an additional affidavit which produced some photographs which were not adduced in the earlier affidavit in opposition to the application for summary judgment.

[7] After hearing the oral submissions of the parties, this Court directed that parties to do further research and file supplementary submissions on these 2 additional questions:

(A) Whether Defendant may adduce additional evidence to defend an application to strike out its counterclaim in the circumstances of this case, that is the factual issues relied upon in the counterclaim are also identical with or similar to the factual issues in defending the application for Summary Judgment after the Court has granted the Summary Judgment ?

(B) Whether the three tests in Ladd & Marshall applies to the subsequent interlocutory