JP Choon Pte Ltd v Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Aedit Abdullah JC |
Judgment Date | 20 June 2016 |
Neutral Citation | [2016] SGHC 115 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 551 of 2015 (Summons No 4416 of 2015) |
Year | 2016 |
Published date | 28 June 2016 |
Hearing Date | 09 December 2015,21 January 2016,16 December 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Wang Ying Shuang and Wong Jun Ming (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Lalwani Anil Mangan & Raina Mohan Chugani (Lalwani Law Chambers) |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure,Summary judgment |
Citation | [2016] SGHC 115 |
The plaintiff applied for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) against the defendant for a claim that arose out of a tenancy agreement. I granted its application in respect of eight of its prayers but granted the defendant unconditional leave to defend the remaining prayer. Being dissatisfied with the orders against him, the defendant has appealed.
BackgroundThe plaintiff, JP Choon Pte Ltd, had been leasing out its premises located at 9A Tech Park Crescent (“the Premises”) to the defendant, Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd, a company carrying on the business of the building and repair of ships, tankers and other ocean-going vessels, since 11 September 2009. On 29 August 2013, the parties renewed the lease agreement between them and entered into the tenancy agreement that was central to the present proceedings (“the Tenancy Agreement”). It was agreed under the Tenancy Agreement that the Premises would be leased to the defendant for a term of two years from 15 September 2013 to 14 September 2015.
Problems arose in sometime in December 2013 when the defendant started defaulting on the rent and maintenance expenses that became due under the Tenancy Agreement. From August 2014 to May 2015, the plaintiff sent several reminders for payment to the defendant, to which the defendant responded by asking for more time. The plaintiff granted the defendant extensions on a few occasions (although it declined to do so on other occasions), but the latter was still unable to meet the payments. As of April 2015, the defendant owed the plaintiff a total sum of $479,943.75.
On 19 May 2015, the plaintiff’s business development manager, Mr Aw Jia Ming Eugene (“Mr Aw”), met with the defendant’s operations manager, Mr Vinod s/o Vijelal (“Mr Vinod”) at the plaintiff’s office. The parties provided different accounts of what transpired at that meeting (“the 19 May Meeting”).
The defendant’s account was that the parties reached a compromise agreement (“the alleged Compromise Agreement”) at that meeting, comprising the following terms:
The plaintiff, on the other hand, took the position that no agreement was reached at that meeting. Its account was that Mr Vinod had proposed the above terms at the meeting but the parties did not reach an agreement in respect of them. Mr Aw stated that he had explicitly told Mr Vinod (i) that he could not commit to any agreement in respect of the instalment payments without first consulting and seeking the approval of the plaintiff’s management; (ii) that the defendant should formally write to the plaintiff if it intended to terminate the Tenancy Agreement; and (iii) that the security deposit could not be used to offset the outstanding monies as it had to be forfeited under the Tenancy Agreement.
Both parties relied on particular pieces of correspondence that they subsequently exchanged to support their respective accounts. The first piece of correspondence was an email sent by Ms Helen Foo from the plaintiff to the defendant on the same day of the meeting to follow up. The plaintiff asserted that this was in line with its practice of documenting its correspondence with the defendant. The email was worded as follows:
…
During [the 19 May Meeting], Mr Vinod indicated [the defendant’s] intention for early termination of the [Tenancy Agreement] that will only expire on 30th September 2015 and further promised that [the defendant] shall settle all outstanding amount (rent in arrears, services charges and accrued interest) due to [the plaintiff] by instalment payment.
Kindly provide us with a formal letter indicating [the defendant’s] intention as mentioned above together with the payment schedule for the suggested instalment payment for our consideration.
Please also indicate when [the defendant] intends to hand-over the [Premises].
…
The following day (
On 21 May 2015, the defendant sent another letter to the plaintiff, in which it made reference to the agreement that the parties had supposedly reached at the 19 May Meeting that it could pay the outstanding sums in instalments as set out at [5(a)] above. Mr Vinod stated that he did not have sight of the email sent by Ms Foo (at [7] above) before he sent these letters as the email had been addressed to the defendant’s main office email account as opposed to his personal account.
On 22 May 2015 (although the letter was dated 21 May 2015), the plaintiff conveyed though a letter that it accepted the defendant’s repudiation of the Tenancy Agreement and demanded that the defendant pay the arrears, including interest, in full by 28 May 2015 or it would commence legal proceedings. Three days later, on 25 May 2015, the plaintiff sent another letter to the defendant, emphasising that the parties had not reached any agreement at the 19 May Meeting before reiterating its demand for the arrears to be paid before 28 May 2015. The relevant part of the letter read:
…
We have not agreed to, and are not agreeable to[,] your proposal of settling the outstanding payments by way of monthly instalments. …
On 28 May 2015, Mr Vinod handed over a cashier’s order for a sum of $50,000 to Mr Aw at the plaintiff’s office. The defendant argued that this evidenced the existence of the alleged Compromise Agreement, while the plaintiff asserted that it accepted the cashier’s order merely as part-payment of the arrears and stated that its Mr Aw had explicitly told Mr Vinod that the rest of the arrears had to be settled that same day.
A week later, on 5 June 2015, the plaintiff commenced the present suit against the defendant, claiming the following:
The plaintiff applied for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of Court on 9 September 2015. Although the plaintiff had applied for summary judgment to be given in relation to all the prayers listed above, it indicated at the hearing on 9 December 2015 that it no longer wanted to pursue this application in respect of Prayer 9 (set out at [12(i)] above). The plaintiff also asked that Prayer 7 (set out at [12(g)] above) be amended to reflect that the actual costs of the Reinstatement Works were $277,114.25.
The law on summary judgment...To continue reading
Request your trial-
The “Yue You 902”
...(refd) He-Ro Chemicals Ltd v Jeuro Container Transport (HK) Ltd [1993] 2 HKC 368 (folld) JP Choon Pte Ltd v Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 115 (refd) Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party [2007] 1 SLR(R) 675; [2007] 1 SLR 675 (refd) Kai Min Fashion (HK) Ltd v Fond Express Lo......
-
The "Yue You 902" and another matter
...to be tried (see Wee Cheng Swee Henry v Jo Baby Kartika Polim [2015] 4 SLR 250 at [36], JP Choon Pte Ltd v Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 115 at [14] and Sim Kim Seng (trading as Kim Seng Ship Building) v New West Coast Shipyard Pte Ltd [2016] SGHCR 2 at [10]). In this regard, the ......
-
Loy Wei Ezekiel v Yip Holdings Pte Ltd and another matter
...assess, having regard to the evidence as a whole, if the defence is credible” (JP Choon Pte Ltd v Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 115 at [15]). These amplifications of the test are particularly significant in the court’s consideration of the question whether Mr Loy had demonstrated ......
-
Public Prosecutor v Vignish Vijelal
...Pages 8-9. Incidentally the background facts can be gleaned from the case report for JP Choon Pte Limited v Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 115. The claim involved outstanding warehousing charges by the plaintiff company against Lal 94 Exhibit D4. 95 Please see P140/140A, Page 11. 9......
-
Civil Procedure
...5 SLR 887. 83 [2016] 2 SLR 442. 84 HT SRL v Wee Shuo Woon [2016] 2 SLR 442 at [40]. 85 JP Choon Pte Ltd v Lal Offshore Marine Pte Ltd [2016] SGHC 115; Sim Kim Seng v New West Coast Shipyard Pte Ltd [2016] SGHCR 2; Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu [2016] 4 SLR 911. 86 [2016] SGHCR 2. 87 [1988] 1 SLR......