Tang Boon Loong v Chin Mui Lan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: K S Rajah JC
• Judgment Date: 26 February 1994
• Neutral Citation: [1994] SGHC 48
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1994
• Published date: 26 November 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Halijah Mohamad (Nathan Isaac & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Edmund Nathan (Edmund Nathan & Co)
• Citation: [1994] SGHC 48

Judgment:

Coram: K S Rajah JC

J U D G M E N T

1 The plaintiff is the husband of the defendant's elder sister. The defendant is the rich younger sister and the good relationship that existed between the two sisters and the plaintiff went sour over money. The plaintiff's claim for monies lent was an angry dispute.

Background

2 The plaintiff was a salesman for many years. He decided to go into business. He borrowed money from the defendant. The business prospered. The plaintiff's case is that he has repaid the sums borrowed in 1974 and 1975 with interest and thereafter he lent money to the defendant, which is due to him and is the subject of this action.

3 The plaintiff was a salesman in Crane Shoe Shop for a number of years before he decided to open the shoe shop, "Supreme Shoes". A shoe shop styled "Milan Shoes" was registered on 7 August 1975. It is a sole proprietorship. The plaintiff needed capital to open shop. The defendant had the money. The plaintiff's wife approached the defendant for a loan which was given. The amount of money given as a loan is disputed. The plaintiff gave post-dated cheques for the amounts lent.

4 "Florence Shoes" was registered on 7 November 1975 as a sole proprietorship. "Milan Men's Boutique" was registered on 1 August 1986. It is a partnership. The defendant is not a partner. "Tang's Boutique" was registered on 22 September 1986 as a partnership. The defendant is not a partner.

5 Around 1977/78, the defendant ran into financial difficulties. She sold her house in Thomson Road. In April 1980, the defendant purchased property at International Plaza. The plaintiff paid the 10% deposit of $12,800.30 when the defendant signed the option. The option was exercised on 16 April 1980 and the plaintiff paid a further $12,800.30 for the 10% deposit.

6 On 30 April 1980, the plaintiff paid to Tan Lee & Choo $22,884.82 when the completion account was drawn up. Between 1980 and 1983, the plaintiff paid OCBC Finance the monthly mortgage payments. Cheque butts were produced to show that payments were made regularly. The defendant does not dispute the amount of $129,658.35 paid by the plaintiff. The defendant's case is that the premises was let out for $1,100 per month and that the rent was used to pay the monthly mortgage instalments. I reject the plaintiff's evidence that he did not know that the premises were let out, and I have looked for credible evidence to support the defendant's claim that the plaintiff collected and used the rent.

7 In July 1982, the plaintiff sold his shop unit at Lucky Plaza and was paid $1,283,877.50 after $1,000,000 due to Lee Wah Bank Ltd and other sums due had been repaid.

8 On 10 February 1983, the plaintiff paid the defendant $20,000. Payment was made by cheque, a copy of which was produced. The cheque was deposited in the defendant's bank account. The defendant does not dispute this amount. The defendant, however, claims that the payment of $20,000 was her share of the profits from Milan Shoes.

9 The defendant sold her property at the International Plaza in July 1983 for $300,000 and the balance due to her after payments that were due was $217,292.10.

10 The defendant's solicitors on 11 July 1983 made out a cheque for $20,000 to be paid to the defendant and further sums of $17,000 to the plaintiff on 22 August 1983 and released $2,037.46 on 10 January 1984 to the plaintiff. The payment of the money to the plaintiff was challenged. I find as a fact that the solicitors paid the money to plaintiff after receiving instructions from the defendant and I accept the evidence of Mr Tan Kai Hoe, a solicitor of Tan Lee & Choo, and reject the evidence of the defendant that no instructions were given. The letter to the solicitors dated 23 August 1983 from the defendant reads:-

Re: No 10 Anson Road #45-03 International Plaza, Singapore

With reference to the above matter I hereby authorise you to pay all the balance of the proceeds of sale (apart from the sum of $200,292-10 paid to me) to Mr Tang Boon Loong.

11 A sum of $17,000 was paid by the solicitors to the plaintiff on the same day. The defendant claimed it was a loan to the plaintiff. I do not accept her evidence. I find as a fact that she paid the sum because she owed the plaintiff the money he had paid for the International Plaza property.

Police Report

12 The defendant filed a police report on 7 January 1989 and complained that the plaintiff had threatened to harm her over the $20,000 which had been banked in the plaintiff's account without her knowledge. She tried to settle with him but the plaintiff had ignored her. On 13 March 1989, the defendant's solicitors wrote to the police and said:-

We refer to your letter dated 1st March 1989 which was received by us on the 9th instant, and confirm that we acted for Madam Chin Mui Lan in the sale of the above property sometime in 1983.

The matter was handled by our Mr Tan Kai Hoe and to the best of his recollection it was the understanding that all the proceeds of sale, other than the sum of $200,292.10 paid to her, was to be paid to Mr Tang Boon Loong. The letter of authority dated 23rd August 1983 was intended to cover all the balance of the purchase price (apart from the said sum of $200,292.10) including the sum of $20,000.00 (cheque No 047592) which was the balance of the 10% deposit paid by the purchaser upon exercise of the option.

13 The police thereafter wrote to the solicitors for the plaintiff that an investigation had been conducted into another report lodged by the defendant on 11 February 1989 and that the police were not taking any further action against the plaintiff. The matter, however, did not end there because on 27 June 1989, the police were asked to consider taking action against the defendant for making a false report against the plaintiff under s 182 of the Penal Code. The solicitors singled out the sentence in her police report of 11 February 1989 where the defendant in her report said, "I did not know the latest development of the sale of my apartment". This is a measure of the defendant's credibility.

14 In the course of the police investigations, the plaintiff produced documents to show the entire sum of the purchase of the defendant's apartment in 1983 was paid by the plaintiff and that the defendant had not repaid the plaintiff the sum due to him in full. On the defendant's instructions, her solicitors Tan Lee & Choo, handed the balance of the proceeds of sale to the plaintiff after paying off the defendant's mortgage payments. Tan Lee & Choo paid the plaintiff on the defendant's instructions and the defendant chose to make a report claiming that she was not aware how the cheque that was made out in her name went into the plaintiff's account.

15 On 19 August 1989, the defendant filed a writ naming Tan Lee & Choo as the defendants and claimed a sum of $2,037.46 as money that was payable by the solicitors to her. In her statement of claim, the defendant accepted the fact that she sold her property at International Plaza for $300,000 and that the solicitors who had deducted $3,000 as retention money for possible outstanding increase in property tax, before completion of the sale from the balance of the purchase price, had not paid a sum of $2,037.46. The solicitors relied on her letter of authorisation of 23 August 1983 to pay the balance of the proceeds of the sale of the property apart from $200,292.10 to the plaintiff.

16 The defendant's case was that there was no specific authorisation to the solicitors to pay the sum of $2,037.46 to the plaintiff.

17 The letter of authority was issued after the defendant had received the completion statement dated 22 August 1983. The letter sets out in clear terms that "balance of the proceeds of sale (apart from the sum of $200,292-10 paid to me) to Mr Tang Boon Loong". The amount that had to be paid to the defendant was $200,292.10. It was not in dispute that the solicitors paid the sum of $17,000 to the plaintiff on 24 August 1983 and the balance of $2,037.46 (ie $3,000 retention money, less the property tax paid of $962.54).

18 Mr T P B Menon, Senior Partner of a firm of solicitors, Wee Swee Teow & Co, was asked to give an opinion in M C Suit No 8687 of 1989 Chin Mui Lan (mw) v Tan Lee & Choo, and he has said:-

... The Plaintiff's arguments as far as can be made out from her Affidavits appear to be threefold:

(a) the letter of authority does not cover the sum of $3,000.00 retained for property tax;

(b) there was no specific authorisation to the Defendants to release the sum of $2,037.46 to Tang Boon Loong;

(c) the sum of $17,000.00 was a loan to Tang Boon Loong. There was no intention to make a loan of the balance of $2,037.46 to Tang Boon Loong.

I cannot see any merit in the arguments made by the Plaintiff for a number of reasons. First the letter of authority was issued quite obviously after the Plaintiff had received the completion statement dated 22.8.83. The letter of authority sets out in no uncertain terms that the "balance of the proceeds of sale" apart from the sum of $200,292.10 was to be paid to Tang Boon Loong. The sum therefore to be paid to Tang Boon Loong was $217,292.10 less $200,292.10 i.e. $17,000 plus the retention money of $3,000.00 or whatever that was left after payment to the Property Tax Department. Secondly it cannot be denied that the sum of $2,037.46 represents the balance of the proceeds of sale. If it was the intention of the Plaintiff to exclude the sum of $2,037.46 from the balance of the proceeds of sale then this should have been specifically provided for in the letter of authority. Thirdly it is not open to the Plaintiff some six years later to say that the sum of $17,000 was a loan to Tang Boon Loong and the balance of $2,037.46 was payable to the Plaintiff. The letter of authority does not speak of any loan or other arrangement made by the Plaintiff with Tang Boon Loong and the Defendants cannot be expected to know of any such arrangement. Fourthly the...