Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appeal
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ |
Judgment Date | 09 February 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGCA 8 |
Date | 09 February 2015 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal Nos 160 of 2013 and 161 of 2013 |
Published date | 11 February 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Philip Tay and Yip Li Ming (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Hearing Date | 09 May 2014 |
Defendant Counsel | Bazul Ashhab and Mabel Tan (Oon & Bazul LLP) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Subject Matter | Damages,Rules in awarding,Proof of actual damage,Documentary evidence,Reports,Breach,Contract,Evidence,Admissibility of evidence,Hearsay |
These two appeals before us arose from the decision of
The plaintiff in the Suit was Gimpex, a Chennai-based trading company which has been trading in commodities and raw materials since the 1950s. The representatives of Gimpex that were of particular importance to the present proceedings, were one Samir Goenka (“Samir”) who was the joint managing director, and one Avinash Kulkarni (“Kulkarni”) who was the executive director of a Singapore-incorporated subsidiary of Gimpex, SPG Mining Pte Ltd.
The first defendant, Unity, is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands (“BVI”). Unity is owned by a number of shareholders,
The third defendant, Vinay Parmanad Hariani (“Vinay”), is the sole shareholder and director of Param Energy, and is also one of five directors of Unity. Vinay’s evidence was that he was not very involved in dealings with Gimpex, and that he left it to three of his employees, namely, Lalit Balchandani (“Lalit”), Kishore Chuharmal Mahtani (‘Kishore”) and Prem Sangtani (“Prem”). All these three employees were directly involved in carrying out the sale of the coal, and testified in the present proceedings. Another director of Unity, Dev Sindhu (“Dev”), also gave evidence on behalf of the defendants.
Background to the dispute The ContractIn 2009, Samir and Kulkarni were interested in the coal business and were introduced to Vinay through a contact. Some discussions ensued, and this led to Gimpex deciding to purchase coal from the defendants. On 18 February 2010, Lalit sent a draft contract to Gimpex. In that draft, Param Energy was stated as the seller of the coal. Payment for the coal was to be made by a transferable letter of credit (“L/C”) in order for Param Energy to use the L/C to pay its supplier.1
As Gimpex was not agreeable to providing a transferable L/C, Lalit then asked that Unity be substituted as the contracting party in place of Param Energy if no transferrable L/C was to be provided. The reason for this change, as explained by Lalit, was because Param Energy did not have the required banking facilities needed to pay the supplier of the coal, whereas Unity had the required banking facilities and could pay the supplier directly instead of through a transferable L/C. These banking facilities, on clarification by Vinay during cross-examination, were actually funds provided by the shareholders of Unity. Gimpex alleged that it agreed to the change of contracting party on Samir’s understanding that Unity was a Singapore-incorporated company when, in fact, it is a BVI-incorporated company. Samir’s evidence was that he was wary of contracting with Indonesian coal companies, and only wanted to do business with a Singapore-incorporated company as he had a “good impression of the Singapore legal system”.2 He alleged that he had told Vinay that it gave him great comfort that Vinay was in Singapore and owned a Singapore company. 3 He also alleged that he had sought confirmation from Lalit (who replied in the affirmative) that Unity was a Singapore company when the change in contracting party was proposed. 4
A contract for the sale of the coal was eventually entered into between Gimpex and Unity on 2 March 2010 (“the Contract”). The context within which the Contract was entered into by the parties is particularly important in understanding the dispute. For Gimpex, it did not purchase the coal for its own use. Instead, it was to on-sell the coal at a marked-up price to Awan Trading Co Pvt Ltd (“Awan”), a Pakistan-incorporated company, under a contract which it had earlier concluded with Awan (“the Sub-contract”). As Gimpex had agreed with Awan that the coal to be supplied would be of a certain quality, it was therefore important that the coal to be delivered by Unity was of the requisite quality which was stated in the Contract. The profit which Gimpex would make from this arrangement was approximately US$80,000. At the time of the Contract, Lalit’s evidence was that he knew that the Plaintiff was in need of the coal in order to fulfil a sub-sale. However, Lalit neither knew the identity of the sub-buyer nor the terms of the Sub-contract.5
From the defendants’ perspective, Unity was also a middleman of sorts, in that it purchased the coal from another company, PT Planet Resources (“PT Planet”) which was an Indonesia-incorporated company, at a price slightly lower than the sale price stated in the Contract. PT Planet was owned by Unity and Classic, and Vinay was also a director of PT Planet. But PT Planet, however, was not the ultimate supplier of the coal; instead, it purchased the coal from CV Berkah Mulya Abadi (“Berkah”), another Indonesia-incorporated company, at an even lower price. Unity stood to make a profit of 1.83% from this arrangement. Lalit explained that the defendants were willing to enter into the Contract for such a small profit margin in order to cultivate a long-term commercial relationship with Gimpex. This was corroborated in a way by Samir’s evidence that Vinay had intimated to him that the defendants wanted to do business with Gimpex in relation to marble and granite.6
We now come to the salient terms of the Contract. The coal was to be shipped Free On Board from Kalimantan to Karachi with the loading to be done between 25 March 2010 to 3 April 2010. The price of the coal was US$68 per MT on the basis of it being of a certain quality,
Central to the Contract were the terms as to how the quality of the coal was to be ascertained, and this was provided for in these various provisions:7
…
…
The coal was to be shipped from Kalimantan to Karachi by the MV Michalakis (“the Vessel”), a ship nominated by Gimpex pursuant to the Contract. During the loading of the coal from the port in Kalimantan to the Vessel, PT Sucofindo (“Sucofindo”) (as provided for in the Contract) was to conduct a number of tests and produce survey reports which would include the quality and quantity of the coal shipped.
The process of loading the coal on board the Vessel and the sampling of the coal by Sucofindo during the loading process was particularly crucial to the dispute. The entire process of having the coal loaded on board the Vessel could be broken up into three stages: (1) delivering to and stockpiling of the coal at the jetty from source; (2) loading of the coal from the jetty to barges; and (3) loading of the coal from the barges onto the Vessel. Sucofindo conducted a variety of sampling and testing of the coal at each of these three stages. The entire process of loading the coal did not take place at one location but two: 32,000MT out of the 41,510MT of coal was loaded from a place known as Sungai Putting, and the remaining 9,510MT of coal was loaded from Batulicin, a place quite a distance from Sungai Putting. The...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Esben Finance Ltd and others v Wong Hou-Lianq Neil
...s 32(3) of the Evidence Act in the interests of justice: see Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appeal [2015] 2 SLR 686 (‘Gimpex’) at [95]; and that, even where hearsay evidence is admitted, the court retains the ultimate discretion under s 32(5) of the Evidence......
-
Public Prosecutor v Soh Guan Cheow Anthony
...given by a witness on the basis of his personal perception of the circumstances.” The facts of Gimpex Ltd v Unity Business Holdings [2015] 2 SLR 686 illustrate that a statement admitted under Section 32(1) of the Evidence Act should be given less weight when the evidence indicates that ther......
-
Hai Jiao 1306 Ltd and others v Yaw Chee Siew
...relied upon the principles enunciated by the Court of Appeal in Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appeal [2015] 2 SLR 686. For present purposes, it is sufficient to note that it was the plaintiffs’ submission that, as explained in that case, even where a docume......
-
Gian Bee Choo and others v Meng Xianhui
...of the court’s discretion to exclude evidence under s 32(3): Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appeal [2015] 2 SLR 686 (“Gimpex”) at [137]–[141]. In this case, I decide to exercise my discretion to overcome the irregularity of the lack of notice under O 2 r 1 o......
-
THE COURT'S DISCRETION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE IN CIVIL CASES AND EMERGING IMPLICATIONS IN THE CRIMINAL SPHERE
...For cases concerning the discretion under s 32(3) of the Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed), see Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd[2015] 2 SLR 686 (concerning the exclusion of unreliable evidence); Wan Lai Ting v Kee Kah Kim[2014] 4 SLR 795 (concerning, inter alia, the exclusion of e......
-
Whither, hither and thither, Res Gestae? A comparative analysis
of its relevance and application
...Appeal considered hearsay evidence under mul-tiple statutory gateways including s. 32(1)(b) and s. 32(1)(j) in Gimpex Ltd vUnity Holdings [2015] SGCA 8 at [90], [95],[97]–[101].34. 25 Howells State Trials, 444 (1794); see also Barnes (1891: 2).332 The International Journal of Evidence & Pro......
-
Rationalising the burden of establishing defences at criminal law in Singapore: Reconsidering Jayasena, in the wake of Eu Lim Hoklai
...Copper Co Ltd [2016] 1 SLR 1471; PP vKoh Peng Kiat, n. 5 at [53]; Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appeal [2015] 2 SLR 686 andHo Kang Peng v Scintronix Corp Ltd (formerly known as TTL Holdings Ltd) [2014] 3 SLR 329, cf. Masoud Rahimi vinMehrzad v PP and anor a......
-
Contract Law
...Remedies Basis for assessing damages for breach of contract for sale of goods 12.145 In Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd[2015] 2 SLR 686 (‘Gimpex v Unity’), the Court of Appeal had to consider what the appropriate basis for assessing damages for losses arising from breach of warrant......