Tan Tock Lay v Chan Tin Soon

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 23 May 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGHC 70
• Date: 23 May 1991
• Subject Matter: Illegal money-lending,Credit and Security,Payment of larger sum claimed to be interest,Financial arrangement entered into by parties,s 3 Conditional leave to defend,Bare allegations of previous transactions,Moneylenders Act (Cap 188),Money and moneylenders,Presumption
• Docket Number: Suit No 157 of 1989
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: WT Woon (WT Woon & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Chong Soo Chuan (Chor Pee & Co)

The plaintiff`s claim as appears in the statement of claim filed herein is for the sum of 1,007,858.38 comprising three amounts as follows:(i) $710,673.76; (ii) $170,000; (iii) $127,184.62.

The said sum of $710,673.76 is the balance of the plaintiff`s claim for an advance to the defendant, and money paid by the plaintiff to finance the defendant in the purchase of materials and equipment required by the defendant and the payment of wages for the execution of the defendant`s contract with the Housing and Development Board (HDB) for Batch 5 works to replace existing mild steel water tanks with fibre glass polyester water tanks. The financing arrangement is evidenced by an agreement (the financing agreement) dated 31 July 1987. The $710,673.76 is arrived at as follows:

(a) amount advanced to the defendant $ 300,000

(b) add amount expended by the

plaintiff for purchase of materials

and equipment and payment of

wages $2,933,649.96

(c) minus repayment received from

the defendant $2,522,976.20

Total $ 710,673.76

The said sum of $170,000 referred to is for agreed conpayable to the plaintiff under cl 1 of the financing agreement for financing the Batch 5 works.

The said sum of $127,184.62 is the balance of the amount paid by the plaintiff at the request of the defendant for the purchase of materials required by the defendant for his works under Batch 9 of the HDB works plus a financing charge of 3% less a sum of $30,000 paid by the defendant to account.

The writ endorsed with the statement of claim was filed on 24 January 1989. The application by the plaintiff for summary judgment under O 14 of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 in summons-in-chambers entered No 2608 of 1989 was filed on 4 May 1989. It came up for hearing before the learned assistant registrar on 22 November 1989. The learned assistant registrar granted the defendant conditional leave to defend as to the amount of $537,858.38 subject to a banker`s guarantee to be furnished within 30 days therefrom. The defendant was given unconditional leave to defend as to the balance of $470,000. Thereupon the defendant filed his notice of appeal on 24 November 1989 against that part of the order granting him conditional leave to defend on the amount of $537,858.38. The plaintiff on 28 November 1989 filed his notice of appeal against the whole of the order of the assistant registrar.

When the appeals came up for hearing before Sinnathuray J on 9 January 1990, the defendant`s appeal was withdrawn and the plaintiff`s claim in respect of the sum of $537,858.38 was referred to the registrar for taking of accounts. By consent it was ordered, inter alia, that `the defendant do pay to the plaintiff the sums (if any) found by the registrar to be due to the plaintiff on the taking of the said account`. The defendant thereby abandoned his defence all along that the financing arrangement was an illegal moneylending transaction.

When the plaintiff`s cross-appeal came up for hearing before me, the only issue remaining was on the balance of the plaintiff`s claim for $470,000 in respect of which the defendant had been given unconditional leave to defend. The sum of $470,000 is made up of the sum of $300,000 claimed by the plaintiff to have been advanced to the defendant and the balance of $170,000 which is the agreed consideration payable to the plaintiff for financing the defendant`s works in respect of Batch 5 of his contract with the HDB.

The defendant`s receipt of the advance of $300,000 and his agreement to pay the agreed consideration of $170,000 are contained in the financing agreement duly signed by both parties. The financing agreement was kept in a safe deposit box in the joint names of both the plaintiff and the defendant with the Geylang Branch of the United Malayan Banking Corp Ltd (the bank) and could only be retrieved by both of them being present at the bank. The plaintiff therefore requested the defendant to go with him to the bank to retrieve the same for stamping. The defendant refused. Hence, the financing agreement could not be taken out of the bank`s deposit box for stamping and for copies of the same duly stamped to be made for production in the O 14 proceedings....