Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Sundaresh Menon CJ,Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA,Tay Yong Kwang JA |
Judgment Date | 14 August 2017 |
Neutral Citation | [2017] SGCA 46 |
Published date | 19 August 2017 |
Date | 14 August 2017 |
Year | 2017 |
Hearing Date | 02 May 2017 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Alvin Tan Kheng Ann and Os Agarwal (Wong Thomas & Leong) |
Defendant Counsel | Marina Chin Li Yuen, Calvin Liang Hanwen, Eugene Jedidiah Low Yeow Chin, Lee Hwee Yenn Amanda (Tan Kok Quan Partnership) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Citation | [2017] SGCA 46 |
Docket Number | Civil Appeals Nos 152 and 176 of 2016 |
The present proceedings constitute two appeals. The first (Civil Appeal No 152 of 2016 (“CA 152”)) is an appeal against the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in
As the Judge aptly put it, these proceedings constitute “yet another chapter in the dispute between [the Respondent] and his former partners in his 2008 investment in properties located at … River Valley Road” (“the Properties”) (see the Judgment at [1]). As we shall see, the previous “chapters” in this narrative are, of
However, as the Judge also spent a substantial part of the Judgment considering the Appellant’s claim on its merits, we will also consider this particular issue (“Issue 2”) – although it is, strictly speaking, unnecessary as the Appellant’s claim fails under Issue 1. For the reasons set out below, we find that the Appellant has
In so far as the issue of costs that arises from the Supplemental Judgment (“Issue 3”) is concerned (for which leave to appeal was granted by consent
We will first turn to the facts of, and the background to, the present appeals.
Facts and background Parties to the disputeThe Appellant is a director in his family company, Kim Hup Lee & Co Pte Ltd, a property developer. The Respondent was a managing director in the Global Market division of Deutsche Bank Group until April 2008. Lim Koon Park (“Park”) is an architect.
The Appellant had known the Respondent since their student days in the same junior college. The Appellant had known Park since 2000. The Appellant introduced Park to the Respondent in September 2006. Eventually, the three of them agreed to bring together their different expertise for investment purposes.
Background Setting up of RiverwealthThe Appellant, the Respondent and Park entered into a joint venture to acquire, redevelop and resell properties for profit. Riverwealth Pte Ltd (“Riverwealth”) was incorporated on 28 September 2007 as a joint venture vehicle for the acquisition of the Properties. The Properties were purchased in late April 2008 for a total of $48.5m and the purchase was financed by a $30m loan from Hong Leong Finance Limited (“HLF”) to Riverwealth which was jointly and severally guaranteed by the Appellant, Respondent and Park, with the balance provided by the Respondent to Riverwealth in the form of a personal loan and injection of equity capital. There was allegedly an oral agreement for profits from the sale of the Properties to be split in a 2:1:1 ratio (henceforth referred to as “the Initial Agreement”) among the Respondent, Park and the Appellant, respectively. It was undisputed that the Respondent paid for all the share capital in Riverwealth despite the shareholding indicating otherwise. The shareholding in Riverwealth as of April 2008 was as follows:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
It is not disputed that Wee held the Riverwealth shares on Park’s behalf. On 19 November 2008, Riverwealth’s equity shareholding was restructured to comply with the terms of the HLF loan, resulting in the following shareholding:
| | |
| | |
| | |
| | |
It was originally envisaged by the parties that Riverwealth would try and “flip” the Properties for profit within a few months of their purchase. However, Riverwealth’s ownership of the Properties coincided with the onset of the global financial crisis in 2008 and 2009, which made it difficult to sell the Properties. One of the key terms of the HLF loan was that Riverwealth had to submit final plans for the proposed development of the Properties by October 2008, which term was not complied with. It is not disputed that the failure to submit these plans put Riverwealth in breach of the terms of the HLF loan, with the result that HLF was entitled to cancel the loan arrangement. On 3 December 2008, HLF demanded that Riverwealth place a $1m fixed deposit pursuant to the terms of the HLF’s loan. This $1m deposit was eventually placed by the Respondent. The Respondent claims that this event changed the complexion of the Initial Agreement – if the profit sharing agreement was to be sustained, capital had to be injected by the Appellant and Park.
The Uluru meeting and the Appellant’s transfer of shares to the RespondentThe Appellant, the Respondent and Park subsequently met at the Uluru restaurant on 17 December 2008 (“the UIuru meeting”). The events that transpired at this meeting are disputed. The only near-contemporaneous record of what occurred at the meeting was an email dated 19 December 2008 sent from the Respondent to Park, copied to the Appellant, recording Park’s purported agreement to transfer his remaining 13% shareholding in Riverwealth (held in Wee’s name) for a nominal sum of $1 and having Wee step down as a director, in exchange for the Respondent undertaking to discharge Park’s obligation under the HLF guarantee and indemnifying Park for any claims arising from the guarantee. However, by an email dated 2 January 2009, Park refused to follow any of the actions outlined in the 19 December 2008 email, citing legal concerns. It is undisputed that Park held on to his 13% of shares.
In contrast, the Appellant executed two deeds of transfer in favour of the Respondent on 30 January 2009 and 27 March 2009, respectively, effectively divesting his remaining 13% of shares in Riverwealth to the Respondent. He also resigned from his position as director on 27 March 2009. The reasons for these actions, which are material to the Appellant’s claim, are disputed. The Respondent transferred 1000 shares to the Appellant on 13 May 2009, which shares were returned to the Respondent on 29 September 2009; however, these transfers are peripheral to the dispute.
The 2010 Suit between Park and the Respondent The Properties were eventually sold for a sum of $60.08m on 8 October 2009. A dispute between Park and the Respondent first arose over the profits from this sale. Park brought a claim against the Respondent for his share of the profits made under this investment (“the 2010 Suit”), based on the terms of the Initial Agreement. The 2010 Suit was also heard by the Judge. It is crucial to note that
Although the Judge dismissed Park’s claim and allowed the Respondent’s counterclaim based on Park’s misrepresentation (see
Pursuant to an order by this court that an inquiry be conducted to determine Park’s share of the profits from the gross sale proceeds of the Properties less specified deductions, the Judge allowed deductions amounting to $5,408,676.58 to be effected from the said gross proceeds (see
What is of special significance for the purpose of CA 152 is the fact the Appellant commenced his claim in these proceedings against the Respondent just
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Jaclyn Chua v Control Automation Pte Ltd
...the extended doctrine of res judicata, may be implicated (discussed in Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appeal [2017] 2 SLR 760 and Ong Han Nam v Borneo Ventures Pte Ltd [2021] 1 SLR 1248; [2021] SGCA 21). Two, it makes no sense as a matter of case management to allow CAPL......
-
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v Merck KGaA
...is both well established as well as uncontroversial (see, for instance, Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appeal [2017] 2 SLR 760 at [41]). Applied to the facts of this case, it entails that any arguments pertaining to the relevance of additional clauses that, in the Appell......
-
Beyonics Asia Pacific Ltd v Goh Chan Peng
...the answer to that in the present case is plainly no. [emphasis added] In Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another appeal [2017] 2 SLR 760, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, giving the judgment of the Court of Appeal, also applied the reasoning in Johnson v Gore Wood ([44] supra) and ma......
-
Manas Kumar Ghosh v MSI Ship Management Pte Ltd
...[2008] EWCA Civ 2 (refd) Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG [2006] 2 SLR(R) 565; [2006] 2 SLR 565 (refd) Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan [2017] 2 SLR 760 (refd) Olivine Capital Pte Ltd v Chia Chin Yan [2014] 2 SLR 1371 (refd) Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Ngu Tieng Ung [1999] 2 SLR(R) 744; [1999] 4 SLR 37......
-
Litigation
...1 (Sing). 1232 Ram Das VNP v SIA Engineering Co Ltd [2015] SGHC 74 at [23], per Hoo Sheau Peng JC; Lim Geok Lin Andy v Yap Jin Meng Bryan [2017] SGCA 46 at [69]. 1233 ROC Order 22A rule 2 (Sing). 1234 ROC Order 22A rule 3(1) (Sing). As to the circumstances in which an ofer to settle may be ......