Enholco Pte Ltd v Schonk, Antonius Martinus Mattheus and Another

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeChoo Han Teck J
Judgment Date28 April 2015
Neutral Citation[2015] SGHC 108
Citation[2015] SGHC 108
Docket NumberSuit No 212 of 2013
Published date11 February 2016
Hearing Date28 April 2015
Plaintiff CounselDr Lau Teik Soon and Karuppiah Chandra Sekaran (Lau Chandra & Rita LLP)
Defendant CounselSee Chern Yang (Premier Law LLC)
Subject MatterDamages,Measure of damages,Contract
Choo Han Teck J:

Enholco Pte Ltd (“the plaintiff”) is mainly in the business of the sale of spare parts and providing consultancy services in the oil and gas industry. Haank Jan Gerhard (“Gerhard”) is its managing director. Schonk Antonius Martinus Mattheus (“the first defendant”) was an employee of the plaintiff from 1 September 1989 till 24 August 2012. He incorporated International Oil and Gas Consultants (“the second defendant”) on 5 April 2012 and is its sole shareholder and director. Previously in Enholco Pte Ltd v Schonk, Antonius Martinus Mattheus and Another [2015] SGHC 20, I had allowed the plaintiff’s claim and dismissed the defendants’ counterclaims. This judgment deals with the assessment of damages in light of judgment for the plaintiff.

There are some differences between the quantum of damages and nature of relief claimed in the plaintiff’s statement of claim and most recently in the plaintiff’s submissions on damages. It is a fundamental principle of our adversarial system of litigation that each party should be bound by its pleaded case. The purpose behind this principle however, is to allow the other party to be put on notice and have the opportunity to respond to such claims sufficiently. As such, I assessed the damages to be awarded on the basis of the claims and nature of reliefs that have been adduced in evidence at trial and as set out in its statement of claim, but not what was only raised after the trial had concluded.

Following from the above, the plaintiff claims that the defendants are liable for the following heads of losses and damages that the plaintiff has suffered: loss of plaintiff’s company car valued at $100,000; advances and personal loans taken out from the plaintiff and not returned, valued at $575,000; unauthorised personal and travel expenses, valued at $1,226,787.63; diversion of consultancy fees and commissions, valued at $118,560; diversion of business, valued at $55,670.83; and loss of future profits, estimated between $2.8m and $4.2m.

In relation to claims (b) and (c) the plaintiff alleges that monies were taken out from the plaintiff from 1994 to 2012 either on loans which have not been returned, or were taken out for personal expenses and travel expenses which were not authorised. But these travel and personal expenses of the first defendant had been captured in audited account statements which the plaintiff must have been aware of, and without raising any prior objections to them,...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
  • Jethanand Harkishindas Bhojwani v Lakshmi Prataprai Bhojwani
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 16 November 2021
    ...E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd [2012] 1 SLR 32 (folld) Enholco Pte Ltd v Schonk, Antonius Martinus Mattheus [2015] SGHC 108 (folld) Giller v Procopets (2008) 24 VR 1 (refd) Harry Royston Cole v The Chief Officer of the States of Jersey Police [2007] JRC 240 (distd......
  • Schonk Antonius Martinus Mattheus and another v Enholco Pte Ltd and another appeal
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 30 November 2015
    ...Ltd v Schonk Antonius Martinus Mattheus and another [2015] SGHC 20 and Enholco Pte Ltd v Schonk Antonius Martinus Mattheus and another [2015] SGHC 108. The Judge found in favour of EPL that Mr Mattheus had breached his duty to his employer in various ways. The Judge allowed some heads of da......
1 books & journal articles
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review Nbr. 2015, December 2015
    • 1 December 2015
    ...in respect of EPL's claim for damages for loss of future profits it would have earned, but for Mattheus's diversionary activities: see [2015] SGHC 108. Both Mattheus and EPL appealed against the trial judge's decisions on these points. 12.128 On appeal, the Court of Appeal held (at [24]–[26......

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