Quek Jin Oon v Goh Chin Soon

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Dedar Singh Gill J
• Judgment Date: 10 November 2020
• Neutral Citation: [2020] SGHC 246
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: Suit No 17 of 2020 (Registrar’s Appeal No 119 of 2020, and Summons No 1299 of 2020)
• Year: 2020
• Published date: 07 January 2021
• Hearing Date: 04 August 2020
• Plaintiff Counsel: Boaz Chan and Adrian Koh Shang Yong (Incisive Law LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Choo Zheng Xi and Ng Bin Hong (Peter Low & Choo LLC)
• Subject Matter: Bills of Exchange and Other Negotiable Instruments,Summary judgment,Civil Procedure,Mareva injunctions
• Citation: [2020] SGHC 246

Dedar Singh Gill J:

The plaintiff’s action (the “Suit”) is premised upon five post-dated cheques which the defendant drew and delivered to him (the “defendant’s cheques”). The said cheques were for a total sum of S$3m and were dishonoured upon presentation. Pending the determination of the Suit, the plaintiff filed the present Summons No 1299 of 2020 (“SUM 1299”) for an interim Mareva injunction against the defendant. The plaintiff also successfully applied to the assistant registrar (“AR”) below under O 14 r 1 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“ROC”) for summary judgment in respect of his claim for the entire S$3m. The defendant then filed the present Registrar’s Appeal No 119 of 2020 (“RA 119”) against the AR’s decision.

At the hearing on 4 August 2020 (“Hearing”), I dealt with both RA 119 and SUM 1299 together and made the following orders: For RA 119, I granted the plaintiff summary judgment for S$2.5m of his claim. By the parties’ consent, I also granted the defendant leave to defend against the plaintiff’s remaining claim for S$500,000, on the condition that the defendant furnish security of the same amount by way of a banker’s guarantee within two weeks. In the meantime, an undertaking previously given by the defendant not to deal with or dispose of certain assets (the “Undertaking”) was to remain in effect. I will elaborate on this Undertaking later below. I also awarded costs of S$6,000 (all-in) to be paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. For SUM 1299, I made no order on the application.

The defendant has appealed my decision of 4 August 2020. I now set out my grounds of decision.

Background

The plaintiff and the defendant are private individuals. Between April and November 2019, the plaintiff extended five loans (“the Loans”) totalling S$3m to the defendant. The plaintiff disbursed each of the said Loans by way of a cheque (for the loan amount), as set out in the table below:

Loan	Loan Amount	Overseas-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited (“OCBC”) Bank Cheque No.	Date Disbursed
1st Loan	S$500,000	Cheque No. 750386 (“plaintiff’s 1st cheque”)	23 April 2019
2nd Loan	S$1m	Cheque No. 750387 (“plaintiff’s 2nd cheque”)	30 May 2019
3rd Loan	S$500,000	Cheque No. 750389 (“plaintiff’s 3rd cheque”)	11 July 2019
4th Loan	S$500,000	Cheque No. 750395 (“plaintiff’s 4th cheque”)	21 August 2019
5th Loan	S$500,000	Cheque No. 750406 (“plaintiff’s 5th cheque”)	27 November 2019

The five aforementioned cheques were all drawn in favour of, duly delivered to, and successfully encashed by the defendant. They are collectively referred to as the “plaintiff’s cheques”.

In exchange for the plaintiff’s Loans, the defendant drew the five post-dated defendant’s cheques in favour of the plaintiff. As mentioned, the said cheques were also for a total sum of S$3m and delivered to the plaintiff. They are described in further detail in the table below:

S/N	Bank Cheque No.	Amount	Bank	Date of Cheque
1.	Cheque No. 000171 (“defendant’s 1st cheque”)	S$500,000	Citibank Singapore Ltd (“Citibank”)	31 August 2019
2.	Cheque No. 000265 (“defendant’s 2nd cheque”)	S$1m	Citibank	31 August 2019
3.	Cheque No. 000346 (“defendant’s 3rd cheque”)	S$500,000	Citibank	31 August 2019
4.	Cheque No. 000366 (“defendant’s 4th cheque”)	S$500,000	Citibank	31 October 2019
5.	Cheque No. 005032 (“defendant’s 5th cheque”)	S$500,000	HSBC Bank (Singapore) Limited (“HSBC”)	30 November 2019

On 23 December 2019, the plaintiff presented the defendant’s cheques to his bank, OCBC, for payment. The following day, all five cheques were dishonoured and returned marked by OCBC. The reason stated for the return was “Refer to Drawer”.

By way of a letter dated 2 January 2020, the plaintiff’s counsel informed the defendant that the defendant’s cheques had all been dishonoured. In his defence, the defendant admitted that he had received “due notice of dishonour” in respect of the said cheques.

On 7 January 2020, the plaintiff commenced the Suit against the defendant for the payment of S$3m, being the total sum unpaid under the defendant’s cheques. The plaintiff’s claim in respect of the defendant’s 1st to 4th cheques (for S$2.5m) is hereinafter referred to as the “S$2.5m Claim” and his claim in respect of the defendant’s 5th cheque (for S$500,000) is referred to as the “Remaining Claim” (collectively, the “Claim”). The plaintiff also sought interest on the S$3m, pursuant to s 57 of the Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 2004 Rev Ed) (“BEA”) and/or s 12 of the Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) (“CLA”), as well as costs.

On 18 March 2020, pending the determination of the Suit, the plaintiff filed his application in SUM 1299 for an interim Mareva injunction. He sought to restrain the defendant from removing, disposing of, dealing with and/or diminishing the value of any of the latter’s assets in Singapore up to the value of S$3m. This prohibition was to include: a property at Grange Road (“Grange Road property”) of which the defendant was the registered proprietor, or if the said property had already been sold, the net proceeds of sale (after the payment of any mortgages); the defendant’s shares in two companies, one of which was a company in liquidation, Grandlink Group Pte Ltd (“Grandlink”); and the defendant’s Citibank and HSBC bank accounts (the assets above are collectively referred to as the “Listed Assets”).

SUM 1299 was first heard by me on 23 March 2020. Although the plaintiff had made the application on an ex parte basis, the defendant’s counsel was also present at the hearing. I was minded to grant the ex parte application as there appeared to be an attempt by the defendant to dissipate his assets. I bore in mind the fact that once the interim Mareva injunction was granted, it would still be open to the defendant to subsequently seek a discharge of the same. The defendant’s counsel, however, asked for the matter to be adjourned so that it could be heard on an inter partes basis instead. To this end, the defendant gave the Undertaking (mentioned at [2(a)] above) that he would not deal with or dispose of any of the Listed Assets, until SUM 1299 was decided on the aforesaid basis. On the defendant’s Undertaking, I adjourned the matter for an inter partes hearing.

Before the adjourned hearing, the plaintiff applied for summary judgment under O 14, r 1 of the ROC in respect of his entire Claim. As previously stated, the AR below granted the plaintiff’s application on 15 June 2020. She also awarded the plaintiff interest on the S$3m under s 12 of the CLA from the date of issue of the writ to the date of judgment or payment, and costs of S$10,000. The defendant then filed RA 119 against the whole of the AR’s decision. On his part, the plaintiff continued with his application in SUM 1299 in anticipation of the possibility that the defendant might be granted leave to defend the whole or any part of the Suit.

The summary judgment application in RA 119 The plaintiff’s case

In brief, the plaintiff’s account of events was as follows: The parties have known each other for a long time and were former business associates. Sometime in April 2019, the defendant approached the plaintiff for help with various financial difficulties that the defendant had. These difficulties related, inter alia, to outstanding legal fees for divorce and criminal proceedings that the defendant was mired in, as well as outstanding payments on the balance purchase price of two properties that he had. The defendant represented that he would solve these difficulties by end-August 2019 and that he would be put in funds following the settlement of a certain dispute between his company, Grandlink, and the Chinese government (“PRC dispute”). In the meantime, however, the defendant said that he needed a “bridging” loan of S$2m. Out of sympathy, the plaintiff agreed to make the 1st to 3rd Loans, totalling S$2m, to the defendant between April and July 2019. The plaintiff disbursed the said Loans by way of the plaintiff’s 1st to 3rd cheques. As security for these Loans, the defendant gave the plaintiff a diamond-studded watch and a “Cartier” bracelet sometime in April 2019. Subsequently, the defendant continued to seek further loans from the plaintiff. The plaintiff decided to return the watch and bracelet to the defendant so that the latter could raise funds with them. This, however, did not put an end to the defendant’s requests for further help, which the plaintiff eventually acceded to again in August 2019. At the time, the defendant further assured the plaintiff that the former would soon receive moneys in relation to the PRC dispute. The plaintiff thus extended the 4th Loan of S$500,000, which he disbursed by way of the plaintiff’s 4th cheque. Between August and November 2019, the plaintiff refused to entertain any further requests for financial help by the defendant. However, on 26 November 2019, after the defendant explained his ongoing financial difficulties to the plaintiff in person, the latter once again agreed to help. The plaintiff agreed to extend the 5th Loan of S$500,000 to the defendant and disbursed it by way of the plaintiff’s 5th cheque on 27 November 2019. During this period of time, the defendant also drew and delivered the five defendant’s cheques to the plaintiff with a view to repaying the 1st to 5th Loans. Sometime in December 2019, the plaintiff met with the defendant and his lawyer to find out more about the PRC dispute. After the meeting, the plaintiff did not feel confident about the defendant’s ability to recover moneys from the PRC dispute. He thus asked the defendant to repay the Loans, but this was to no avail. That was when the plaintiff presented the...