Singapore Tourism Board v Children's Media Ltd and Others

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Judgment Date27 May 2008
Docket NumberSuit No 175 of 2006
Date27 May 2008

[2008] SGHC 77

High Court

Lai Siu Chiu J

Suit No 175 of 2006

Singapore Tourism Board
Plaintiff
and
Children's Media Ltd and others
Defendant

Lok Vi Ming SC, Edric Pan, Loh Jen Wei, Joseph Lee, Gracie Goh and Jeannette Lim (Rodyk & Davidson LLP) for the plaintiff

Chelva Rajah SC with Srinivasan V N (Heng Leong & Srinivasan) for the defendants.

Arts Niche Cyber Distribution Pte Ltd v PP [1999] 2 SLR (R) 936; [1999] 4 SLR 111 (refd)

Bansal Hemant Govindprasad v Central Bank of India [2003] 2 SLR (R) 33; [2003] 2 SLR 33 (refd)

Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd v Donald & McArthy Pte Ltd [1996] 3 SLR (R) 760; [1997] 1 SLR 1 (folld)

Browne v Dunn (1893) 6 R 67 (folld)

Caltong (Australia) Pty Ltd v Tong Tien See Construction Pte Ltd [2002] 2 SLR (R) 94; [2002] 3 SLR 241 (refd)

Carreras Rothmans Ltd v Freeman Mathews Treasure Ltd [1985] Ch 207 (refd)

Chong Khee Sang v Pang Ah Chee [1984] 1 MLJ 377 (folld)

Highness Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd v Sigma Cable Co (Pte) Ltd [2006] 3 SLR (R) 640; [2006] 3 SLR 640 (folld)

Jet Holding Ltd v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2006] 3 SLR (R) 769; [2006] 3 SLR 769 (folld)

JSI Shipping (S) Pte Ltd v Teofoongwonglcloong [2007] 4 SLR (R) 460; [2007] 4 SLR 460 (folld)

Justlogin Pte Ltd v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd [2004] 1 SLR (R) 118; [2004] 1 SLR 118 (refd)

Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor [2007] 3 SLR (R) 537; [2007] 3 SLR 537 (refd)

Liza bte Ismail v PP [1997] 1 SLR (R) 555; [1997] 2 SLR 454 (folld)

MacarthurCook Property Investment Pte Ltd v Khai Wah Development Pte Ltd [2007] SGHC 93 (refd)

Ooi Ching Ling v Just Gems Inc [2003] 1 SLR (R) 14; [2003] 1 SLR 14 (refd)

Pacific Rim Palm Oil Ltd v PT Asiatic Persada [2003] 4 SLR (R) 731; [2003] 4 SLR 731 (refd)

Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee [2001] 2 SLR (R) 435; [2001] 3 SLR 405 (folld)

Rhodia International Holdings Ltd v Huntsman International LLC [2007] 2 All ER (Comm) 577 (refd)

Rover International Ltd v Cannon Film Sales Ltd [1989] 1 WLR 912 (refd)

Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Philip Tan Kok Ming [1995] 2 AC 378 (refd)

Show Theatres Pte Ltd v Shaw Theatres Pte Ltd [2002] 1 SLR (R) 578; [2002] 2 SLR 144 (refd)

Tan Soo Leng David v Wee Satku & Kumar Pte Ltd [1997] 3 SLR (R) 257; [1998] 2 SLR 83 (refd)

Teng Ah Kow v Ho Sek Chiu [1993] 3 SLR (R) 43; [1993] 3 SLR 769 (folld)

Trans-World (Aluminium) Ltd v Cornelder China (Singapore) [2003] 3 SLR (R) 501; [2003] 3 SLR 501 (refd)

Travista Development Pte Ltd v Tan Kim Swee Augustine [2007] 3 SLR (R) 628; [2007] 3 SLR 628 (refd)

Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164 (refd)

Win Line (UK) Ltd v Masterpart (Singapore) Pte Ltd [1999] 2 SLR (R) 24; [2000] 2 SLR 98 (folld)

Evidence Act (Cap 97,1997 Rev Ed)ss 63, 64, 65, 66 (consd);s 116illus (g)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)O 22A

Singapore Tourism Board Act (Cap 305B, 1997 Rev Ed)

Companies–Incorporation of companies–Lifting corporate veil–Special purpose vehicle used as conduit for payments–Corporate governance–Commingling of bank accounts–Whether corporate veil pierced–Whether company used to evade liability–Whether company used to defraud plaintiff–Whether real contractual relationship existed between defendant companies–Contract–Misrepresentation–Fraudulent–Inducement to enter contract–Inducement to enter collateral contract–Confirmation of financing arrangements–Intention to stage musical concert–Whether representation of intention without honest belief constituted fraudulent misrepresentation–Whether silence constituted fraudulent misrepresentation–Whether contract rescinded–Whether collateral contract rescinded–Evidence–Documentary evidence–Proof of contents–External auditor's testimony used to prove truth of contents of document–Failure to call as witness party who originally prepared documents–Legitimacy of expenditure–Whether expert testimony can be adduced to prove contents–Whether expert testimony reliable–Whether experts' verification process independent–Whether experts overly deferential–Whether failure to call party as witness gave rise to presumption that testimony will be unfavourable–Trusts–Quistclose trusts–Statutory body advancing money under contract in performance of statutory function–Whether entitled to recover money–Whether nature of underlying transaction relevant–Whether contractual obligations constituted purpose of advance–Whether statutory function affected purpose of advance

The plaintiff was the Singapore Tourism Board (“STB”), a statutory body with the aim, inter alia, of promoting Singapore as a travel and tourist destination. It entered into a series of agreements with the first defendant, a UK company. The second defendant was another UK company that was the shareholder of the first defendant. The third defendant was at all material times the director and chief executive officer of the first and second defendants, as well as the sole shareholder of the second defendant.

The third defendant, who claimed extensive experience in organising musical events on an immense international scale, had approached the Singapore government with a proposal to stage a musical event in Singapore known as Listen Live (“the Event”). The Event was meant to be the culmination of a 180-day worldwide campaign called the Listen Campaign (“the Campaign”); which was intended to comprise a series of activities involving well-known dignitaries, heads of state, members of royalty as well as film and music artistes to be broadcast all over the world in order to raise funds for the world's most disadvantaged children.

STB was designated as the lead agency to negotiate with the defendants. The negotiations led to STB entering into an agreement (“the First Agreement”) with the first defendant - which the third defendant said was a special purpose vehicle specially created to hold the rights to artistes, to ensure that such rights could not be exploited for events other than the Campaign.

In reality, the first defendant was merely the conduit to receive the sponsorship sums. It was made to bear all the expenses and liabilities of the second defendant as well as those of third parties, but it obtained none of the benefits for being the organiser of the Event. Instead, where liabilities were to be incurred, the contract was entered into by the first defendant, but where income was to be received, the contract was entered into by the second defendant. Between the defendants, there were no internal procedures for the control of movement of funds, their bank accounts were effectively commingled, and there was a dearth of documents in relation to bank accounts, liabilities and obligations between them. Although the defendants alleged there was a defined contractual relationship between the first and second defendants in relation to the staging of the Event, there were no written documents/agreements to support this claim.

Control of the first defendant's bank account rested in the third defendant's hands, who used it to make payments to himself, the second defendant, his friends and third parties without any measure of checks and balances. Similarly, the third defendant was essentially the controlling mind and the sole beneficiary of the profits of the second defendant, being the only person within the second defendant who decided to whom payments were to be made.

Under the First Agreement, STB was obliged to provide a sum of money (“the sponsorship sum”). In return, the first defendant was obliged to procure the necessary artistes, broadcasters and financing (“Core Finance”) to stage the Event. If the first defendant failed to confirm that it had raised Core Finance 180 days prior to the staging of the Event, the first defendant could terminate the agreement in which event the company would be obliged to return whatever sponsorship sums STB had paid (the “refund provision”). Deadlines were provided for the fulfilment of these obligations. However, the first defendant failed to meet its deadlines, citing external events which diverted attention from its fund-raising attempts, and the Event could not be staged by the timeline contemplated in the First Agreement. STB accepted the first defendant's explanations and agreed to a variation of the contract that resulted in a new agreement (“the Second Agreement”).

Under the Second Agreement, the right to terminate was now available to both parties instead of only being available to the first defendant. It also included a reduction of the key deliverables for the confirmation of artistes and broadcasters, while the period for confirmation of Core Finance was reduced. On the last day of this new deadline, the first defendant purported to give confirmation that Core Finance had been raised. Although suspicious, STB acknowledged, without prejudice to its rights, that the first defendant had confirmed Core Finance, so as to enable the Event to proceed. However, the Event still failed to be staged by the timeline contemplated in the Second Agreement because the first defendant had failed to procure the necessary artistes and broadcasters, citing again external events for its failure to do so.

Subsequently, at a meeting held by the parties, the third defendant represented to STB that the Event could still be staged if STB agreed to a postponement. However, the third defendant insisted that STB remove the refund provision - characterising the presence of the refund provision as a “deal-breaker”. At this meeting, the defendants never raised the possibility that Core Finance could not be raised, nor did they inform STB that the Core Finance previously raised could no longer be applied towards the staging of the Event. At this point, STB was unaware that the third defendant had transferred the entire balance of the sponsorship sums from the first defendant's account to that of the second defendant's, or that instructions had already been given to stop work for the Event. Neither was STB...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • Sports Connection Pte Ltd v Deuter Sports GmbH
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 1 Junio 2009
    ...Agreement. In this regard, the Judge referred to the High Court decision of Singapore Tourism Board v Children’s Media Ltd [2008] 3 SLR 981 (recently affirmed by this court in Children’s Media Ltd v Singapore Tourism Board [2009] 1 SLR 524), where Lai Siu Chiu J stated (at To constitute rep......
  • Aero-Gate Pte Ltd v Engen Marine Engineering Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 31 Julio 2013
    ...SLR 406 (distd) Shawton Engineering Ltd v DGP International Ltd [2006] BLR 1 (distd) Singapore Tourism Board v Children's Media Ltd [2008] 3 SLR (R) 981; [2008] 3 SLR 981 (refd) Sports Connection Pte Ltd v Deuter Sports Gmb H [2009] 3 SLR (R) 883; [2009] 3 SLR 883 (folld) Stocznia Gdanska S......
  • The Attorney-General v The Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 27 Mayo 2015
    ...(at [16]–[17]) and Twinsectra (at [18]) but did not endorse either model. Singapore Tourism Board v Children's Media Ltd and others [2008] 3 SLR(R) 981 (“STB”) likewise cited both the Quistclose case (at [88]) and Twinsectra (at [89]) without approving either model. Sitt Tatt Bhd v Goh Tai ......
  • Hai Jiao 1306 Ltd and others v Yaw Chee Siew
    • Singapore
    • International Commercial Court (Singapore)
    • 13 Julio 2020
    ...(1911) 27 TLR 451 (refd) Sheila Kazzaz v Standard Chartered Bank [2020] 3 SLR 1 (refd) Singapore Tourism Board v Children's Media Ltd [2008] 3 SLR(R) 981; [2008] 3 SLR 981 (refd) Sudha Natrajan v The Bank of East Asia Ltd [2017] 1 SLR 141 (refd) Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim M......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT