Lee Pei-Ru Alice and another v Airtrust (Singapore) Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Tay Yong Kwang J |
Judgment Date | 25 November 2013 |
Neutral Citation | [2013] SGHC 259 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 523 of 2011 |
Published date | 23 January 2014 |
Year | 2013 |
Hearing Date | 02 October 2013,26 September 2013,04 October 2013,25 September 2013,24 September 2013 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Aaron Lee, Clement Julien Tan, Ms Koh En Ying and Ms Seow Wan Jun (Allen & Gledhill LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Ms Rajan Menon Smitha, Mohamed Nawaz Kamil and Ms Michelle Neo (WongPartnership LLP) |
Subject Matter | Contract |
Citation | [2013] SGHC 259 |
This suit concerned alleged oral assurances allegedly made by the late Peter Fong (“Peter”) that certain investments made by the first plaintiff, Alice Lee Pei-Ru (“Alice”) and the second plaintiff, Fong Wei Heng (“Wei Heng”) would be repaid by the defendant, Airtrust (Singapore) Pte Ltd (“Airtrust”). I allowed the claim and ordered the investment sums to be repaid. The defendant has appealed against my decision.
BackgroundAlice is Peter’s widow. Wei Heng is the only son of Peter and Alice. When the purported oral assurances were made, Linda Kao (“Linda”) was (and continues to be) the managing director of Airtrust while Evelyn Ho (“Evelyn”) was Peter’s personal assistant. Peter also had daughters from an earlier marriage.
Peter was a successful businessman. He had an impeccable reputation of always keeping his word. In 1972, he founded Airtrust, a company with dealings in the power, oil and gas industries. He remained the chairman and a director of Airtrust until he passed away on 25 April 2008. He held a majority of the issued and paid up share capital of Airtrust. On 3 January 2006, Peter transferred 51% of the issued share capital in Airtrust to Fong Foundation Limited (“Fong Foundation”), a public company limited by guarantee to promote charitable, educational and cultural causes, with the intention of having the Fong Foundation run Airtrust after his demise. At the material time from September to December 2006, all the directors and registered shareholders of Airtrust, with the exception of Linda and Evelyn, were members of Peter’s family. Peter was practically the
Since 2003, Airtrust was a 40% shareholder in a Belize company named Southern Cross Ltd (“Southern Cross”). Kenneth Cooper (“Cooper”) held 40% of the shares in Southern Cross, while Anton Soleiman and Hsien Yoong How (“Hsien”) held 17% and 3% respectively.
Sometime in 2006, Southern Cross planned a project to purchase and convert a vessel, the
Cooper, on behalf of Southern Cross, approached Peter for assistance in procuring an additional USD 2.2m. Airtrust was, however, facing cash-flow problems at that time. Peter agreed to look for additional external investors who, collectively, would be entitled to the following rights:
Peter approached the following people to invest: Dr Goh Hak Su (“Dr Goh”), Professor Yeoh Kian Hian (“Professor Yeoh”), Henry Lim (“Henry”), Linda and Alice (for herself and Wei Heng, then a minor). Peter also procured the Fong Foundation to invest. All the people approached, save for Linda who declined, initially invested the following amounts in September 2006:
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
| |
The money for Alice and Wei Heng’s investment was paid by Coronation Housing Pte Ltd (“Coronation Housing”), a company jointly owned by Peter and Alice. Sometime in November 2006, Coronation Housing was repaid S$863,500, with interest, in the following manner:
A spate of withdrawals then occurred. The exact circumstances surrounding the withdrawals were contentious and shall be examined further below.
Sometime in November 2006, Alice approached Peter to halve her and Wei Heng’s investment in the
Thus, after October 2008, Alice and Wei Heng together with the Fong Foundation were the only investors remaining. They had by then invested a total of S$1,295,250 and S$1,283,250 respectively. Unfortunately, the
On 28 July 2011, the plaintiffs filed this suit, seeking repayment of the sum of S$1,295,250 from Airtrust. This suit is one of the many legal battles that currently plague the late Peter’s family and businesses. Due to the legal strife, receivers and managers were appointed by consent on 17 January 2012 to manage Airtrust.
The respective cases The plaintiffs asserted that Peter was confident about the
The defendant asserted that Peter did not represent to Alice that the plaintiffs’ investment could be terminated at any time and that the sums advanced would be repaid by Airtrust. Peter also did not commit to Airtrust indemnifying the plaintiffs’ investment. If there was any assurance given by Peter to Alice, it was, at most, a personal assurance that the investment was safe and that he would support it. There was no intention to create legal relations. Even if Peter had undertaken a legally binding obligation to repay the investment sum upon request, this was done in his personal capacity and not on behalf of Airtrust. There was thus no obligation on the part of Airtrust tore pay the plaintiffs the sums claimed.
The issues raised Accordingly, the issues raised were as follows:
With respect to the plaintiffs’ initial investment, Alice averred in her affidavit of evidence-in-chief (“AEIC”) that:
Similarly, with regard to the plaintiffs’ second investment, where Alice took over Dr Goh’s investment, she averred in her AEIC that:Peter Fong told us that if we advanced money to Airtrust, it would be without risk as Airtrust would underwrite it. Wei Heng and I could terminate our investment arrangement at any time by asking Airtrust to repay the principal sum advanced by us, in full and final settlement against both Airtrust and Southern Cross.
Under cross-examination, Alice said that:Peter said that I would have the same investment terms as Dr Goh.
Documentary evidenceI have the same terms as myself, the first investment, and that is I have the right that this investment is without risk, I have the right to exits [
sic ], and Airtrust will pay me back.
A key document corroborating the plaintiffs’ version of events was an email from Linda to Alice sent on 31 March 2009 (“the 31 March email”). Due to the importance of this email, I shall set it out in full below (Wei Heng is referred to as Wei Wei in the email):
Hi Alice,
I would like to recap what we discussed on Sunday and give you my views.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn v Kao Chai-Chau Linda
...v Fong Wai Lyn Carolyn [2016] 1 SLR 21 (refd) Kirby v Wilkins [1929] 2 Ch 444 (refd) Lee Pei-Ru Alice v Airtrust (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2013] SGHC 259 (refd) Low Gim Har v Low Gim Siah [1992] 1 SLR(R) 970; [1992] 2 SLR 593 (refd) MCST Plan No 1933 v Liang Huat Aluminium Ltd [2001] 2 SLR(R) 91......