Chua Kwok Fun Kevin and Another v Etons Management Consultants Pte Ltd and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 07 April 1999
• Date: 07 April 1999
• Docket Number: Suit No 1646 of 1998 (Registrar's
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Chua Kwok Fun Kevin and another

Plaintiff

and

Etons Management Consultants Pte Ltd and others

Defendant

[1999] SGHC 84

Lim Teong Qwee JC

Suit No 1646 of 1998 (Registrar's Appeal No 578 of 1998)

High Court

Contract–Remedies–Specific performance–Applicable principles–Default in performing agreement to furnish bank guarantee–Whether damages adequate remedy–Whether more just to grant specific performance or to award damages only–Whether performance impossible and undue hardship caused if specific performance ordered

By a settlement agreement, the defendants agreed to pay the plaintiffs US$1m by a certain date and a further US$6m subsequently and in addition, the defendants would provide a banker's guarantee securing the payment of the US$6m. The US$1m was duly paid but the defendants defaulted in the provision of a bank guarantee. The plaintiffs brought the present action claiming an order for specific performance of the settlement agreement and that the guarantee be furnished. The senior assistant registrar gave judgment for specific performance against the defendants, who were ordered to furnish the guarantee by a specific date. The defendants appealed to a High Court judge. The defendants did not deny the settlement agreement nor the fact that they were in default. However, they argued that damages would be an adequate remedy and that if the plaintiffs received the US$6m by the date agreed, they would have suffered no damage. It was further argued that performance was impossible and there would be undue hardship on the defendants if specific performance was ordered.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) When deciding whether to grant specific performance in a case, the court was concerned with the question whether it was more just to grant specific performance with or without damages as well than to award damages only: at [4].

(2) The quantum of damages seldom affected the right to specific performance. There was no doubt that damages would not be an adequate remedy in this case: at [5].

(3) Based on the evidence before the court, it could not be said that it was impossible for the defendants to furnish the bank guarantee or that any hardship would be caused to them if specific performance was ordered. On the contrary, there would be hardship on the plaintiffs if specific performance was not ordered. Accordingly, it was more just to grant specific performance than to award damages only: at [9] and [10].

Beswick v Beswick [1968]...