Chan Heng Thye v Australian Wine Index (Singapore) Pte Ltd

CourtDistrict Court (Singapore)
JudgeLeslie Chew
Judgment Date08 July 2011
Neutral Citation[2011] SGDC 225
Citation[2011] SGDC 225
Docket NumberDistrict Court No. 4205 of 2010, Registrar’s Appeal No. 81 of 2011, RAS No. 111 of 2011
Publication Date26 July 2011
Plaintiff CounselMr Lim Tong Chuan (M/s Tan Peng Chin LLC)
Defendant CounselMr Max Ng with Ms Nurul (M/s Gateway Law Corporation)
District Judge Leslie Chew: Background

I heard the Registrar’s Appeal by the Defendants on 21 June 2011. At the hearing after considering the arguments and the affidavit evidence, I allowed the appeal against the decision of the Deputy Registrar (‘DR’). I therefore set aside the decision of the DR and granted the Defendants unconditional leave to defend the action.

The DR had granted the Plaintiff interlocutory judgment with damages to be assessed, on their application for summary judgment.

The Case The Plaintiff’s Position

The Plaintiff claimed against the Defendants in connection with what he says is an investment portfolio in wine purchased from the Defendants. The Defendants deal in wines.

According to the Plaintiff, he had purchased several lots of wine (‘the Wine Portfolio’) from or through the Defendants, the details of which are set out in paragraph 3 of the Statement of Claim. The Plaintiff says also that he acquired the Wine Portfolio under an agreement with the Defendants. As pleaded in paragraph 4 of the Statement of Claim, the agreement was partly in writing and partly oral (‘the Agreement’).

The Plaintiff then asserts that under the Agreement, among other things: The Defendants were to Act the Plaintiff’s agent to sell on his instructions wines from the Wine Portfolio from time to time and after such sale to remit the proceeds to the Plaintiff. The agreement was for the Defendants to procure that the Plaintiff would sell his Wine Portfolio within 3 years of the Agreement to realize the value thereof.

The Plaintiff then claimed that despite the Agreement and in breach thereof, the Defendants had failed to comply with the Plaintiffs written and verbal instructions to sell the Plaintiff’s Wine Portfolio to realize its value.

More specifically, in his affidavit of 28 Feb 2011at paragraphs 8 and 9, the Plaintiff set out a number of terms which the Plaintiff says were agreed with the Defendants. In particular, the Plaintiff says that the Defendants had agreed that “[the Plaintiff’s wine portfolio with the Defendants can and will be realized within a period of 3 years”.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff contended that by reason of the Defendants’ breach of the Agreement, he suffered loss and damage. Hence his present claim for an order that the Defendants “sell the Plaintiff’s Wine Portfolio” and further and alternatively damages to be assessed.

The Defendants’ Position

The Defendants on their part, deny the terms of...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT