Ip Yun Ha v Dennis Wee Properties Pte Ltd and others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Leslie Chew
• Judgment Date: 30 October 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGDC 446
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Hearing Date: 01 October 2012
• Docket Number: District Court No. 2050 of 2010, RA No. 159 of 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Mr Bernard Sahaga (M/s Lee Bon Leong & Co.)
• Defendant Counsel: Mr William Ong with Ms Magdeline Sim (M/s Allen & Gledhill)
• Published date: 24 January 2013

District Judge Leslie Chew: Background

This case is an offshoot of several claims instituted by the present Plaintiff against one or other of the present Defendants. In the present Registrar’s Appeal (RA), the court is being asked to review the decision of the Deputy Registrar (DR) who granted the 3rd Defendant’s application to strike out the Plaintiff’s claim

I heard the RA on 1 Oct 2012. I agreed with the DR and confirmed the DR’s decision thus dismissing the Plaintiff’s RA. The Plaintiff has appealed my decision.

I now give the reasons for my decision.

Events leading to the Present Suit by the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff had previously sued the 2nd Defendant in DC 3609/2008/B (‘the 2008 Suit’). In the 2008 Suit the Plaintiff claimed against the 2nd Defendant for breach of fiduciary duties in the 2nd Defendant’s capacity as the Plaintiff’s agent in the purchase of 2 properties – units #07-06 and #19-05, No 53 Meyer Road.

Eventually the 2008 Suit was settled by the 2nd Defendant accepting the Plaintiff’s Offer To Settle (‘OTS’). Notwithstanding the settlement, the Plaintiff commenced the present action claiming against the Defendants essentially on the grounds that the settlement of the 2008 Suit did not include the Plaintiff’s claim in respect of unit #07-03. Both Dennis Wee Realty Pte Ltd (the correct 1st Defendant here) and the 2nd Defendants successfully applied to strike out the present action on the basis that the matter had been settled in the 2008 Suit – in both striking out applications, there were appeals to the High Court from the decisions of the District Court which culminated in the High Court agreeing and affirming the District Court decisions to strike out the Plaintiff’s present action against Dennis Wee Realty Pte Ltd and the 2nd Defendant.

The Present Application

The present RA is therefore limited to the 3rd Defendant’s situation. The 3rd Defendant is the husband of the 2nd Defendant. The Plaintiff’s claim against him is essentially based on his receiving secret profits or improper payments from the sale of purchase of unit #070-03 a transaction in which the Plaintiff had claimed in the 2008 Suit that the 2nd Defendant had acted as the Plaintiff’s agent. That 2008 Suit was of course settled – see paragraph 5.

The present claim against the 3rd Defendant is based entirely on the same factual matrix as in the action which was against the 2nd Defendant in the 2008 Suit. Further in the present action, the claims against the Dennis Wee Realty and the 2nd Defendant is on the basis that the settlement of the 2008 Suit did not include or encompass the Plaintiff’s claim in respect of the sale and purchase of unit #07-06. However, these claims have since been ultimately struck out by the High Court. More...