Wiseway Global Co Ltd v Qian Feng Group Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | George Wei JC |
Judgment Date | 31 March 2015 |
Neutral Citation | [2015] SGHC 85 |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Suit No 690 of 2014 (Registrar’s Appeals Nos 41 and 49 of 2015) |
Published date | 07 April 2015 |
Year | 2015 |
Hearing Date | 02 March 2015 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Chen Xinping and Rich Seet (WongPartnership LLP) |
Defendant Counsel | Ng Lip Chih and Jennifer Sia (NLC Law Asia LLC) |
Subject Matter | Civil Procedure,Summary Judgment,Contract,Illegality,Estoppel |
Citation | [2015] SGHC 85 |
The proceedings before me arise from Wiseway Global Co. Ltd’s (“the Plaintiff”) application for summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) (“the ROC”) in Summons No 4487 of 2014 (“SUM 4487/2014”). On 30 January 2015, the learned assistant registrar (“the AR”) granted Qian Feng Group Limited (“the Defendant”) conditional leave to defend. The Defendant was ordered to put up security in the sum of HKD 29,789,087 by 4.00pm on 2 March 2015, failing which judgment would be given to the Plaintiff with interest and costs.
Both the Plaintiff and the Defendant filed an appeal against the AR’s decision. In Registrar’s Appeal No 41 of 2015, the Defendant appeals against the AR’s decision to grant it
Having heard the parties on 2 March 2015, I reserved judgment.
Brief factual backgroundThe Plaintiff is a company incorporated in Hong Kong. The Defendant is a company incorporated in the British Virgin Islands. It is common ground that the parties signed a “Financing Agreement” dated 30 December 2012 (“the Financing Agreement”). The Financing Agreement was in Chinese and an English translation was placed before the court. The Plaintiff’s case is that the Agreement constituted a loan extended by the Plaintiff to the Defendant for the purpose of business development; the Defence’s position is that the Agreement was never intended to be an enforceable loan or, in the alternative, that it is tainted by illegality and therefore unenforceable.
I now set out a summary of the salient clauses in the Financing Agreement:
I should add that personal guarantees for the return of the loan extended under the Financing Agreement were provided by two individuals, Liu Yanlong (“Liu”), and Wang Hui (“Wang”). These guarantees were provided in writing (in Chinese) and are both dated 31 December 2012. In the first “Letter of Undertaking”, Liu and “Chang Guan Lou (Beijing) Club Management Co. Ltd.”, a company owned by Liu, undertook to repay RMB$23m to the Plaintiff on the maturity date of the loan, and agreed to have “an unlimited joint liability with the [Defendant] in repaying the borrowed sum to the [Plaintiff]” (quoted from the English translation of the guarantees). In the second, Wang agreed to the same. The letters of undertaking do not contain any choice of law clauses.
It is undisputed that on 23 January 2013, HKD 24,618,663 was transferred by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. The plaintiff also placed the following two documents into evidence via affidavit.
The first is a document titled “Loan Supplementary to Financing Agreement and Remittance Instructions” dated 30 January 2013 (“Fund Transfer Confirmation”). The Fund Transfer Confirmation appears to have been signed by both the Plaintiff and the Defendant. In the Fund Transfer Confirmation, the following points appear to have been agreed.
The second is an agreement which appears to have been signed and executed by the parties on 1 March 2014 (“Supplemental Agreement”). The Supplemental Agreement amends the terms of the Financing Agreement in the following salient ways:
On the Supplemental Agreement, I note that Lin’s signature does not appear at the position where the Defendant is supposed to have signed the document. Instead, it appears at the “Witnessed by” portion of the document. For this reason, the court sent a letter to both parties, asking for an explanation. In response, the Plaintiff submitted that the document was still validly signed because Lin’s signature appears at the “Witnessed by” portion of the document. The Defendant simply stated that Lin does not
In light of the foregoing, I shall proceed on the basis that the Defendant did sign the Supplemental Agreement through Lin, and is accordingly bound by its terms.
To date, it is undisputed that the sum of HKD 29,789,087 has not been paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff. On 6 June 2014, the Plaintiff’s lawyers sent a letter of demand to the Defendant, demanding repayment of HKD 29,789,087 pursuant to the Financing Agreement, as amended by the Supplemental Agreement. Failing to get any response from the Defendant, the Plaintiff commenced Suit No 690 of 2014 on 26 June 2014. The Plaintiff then filed for summary judgment on 10 September 2014 (SUM 4487/2014).
Parties’ submissions The Plaintiff’s
I start by explaining the Defendant’s position.
The Defendant claims that the Financing Agreement is not a straightforward loan agreement; instead, it had been entered into by the parties to disguise and further an illegal arrangement designed by the Plaintiff. The Defendant calls this the “Refund Arrangement”. Under the Refund Arrangement, the parties agreed that monies would be transferred from the Plaintiff’s Hong Kong bank account to the Defendant’s Hong Kong bank account pursuant to the apparent loan agreement. The Defendant would then transfer the said monies via its Chinese bank accounts to the Plaintiff’s nominees in China, who also hold Chinese bank accounts. The purpose of the Refund Arrangement was to circumvent the Chinese Government’s foreign exchange controls. In return for its assistance, the Plaintiff agreed to pay the Defendant a fee, and also represented to the Defendant that it would not enforce the loan agreement against the Defendant.
In light of the foregoing, the Defendant raises two defences to...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lim Oon Kuin v Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd
...4 SLR 433 (refd) Winkworth v Edward Baron Development Co Ltd [1987] 1 All ER 114 (refd) Wiseway Global Co Ltd v Qian Feng Group Ltd [2015] SGHC 85 (refd) Facts The respondent, Ocean Tankers (Pte) Ltd (“OTPL”), was a ship charterer and ship-management company. OTPL was the sister company of ......
-
Akfel Commodities Turkey Holding Anonim Sirketi v Townsend, Adam
...concurrently pursue against the guarantor, Akfel Singapore. It is pertinent to note that in Wiseway Global Co Ltd v Qian Feng Group Ltd [2015] SGHC 85 (“Wiseway”) at [30], it was held that an adverse inference could not be drawn from a decision by a plaintiff not to pursue a remedy against ......
-
Manohar K D Nanwani and Seema Manohar Nanwani v Hao Mart Pte. Ltd.
...defence“ Associated Development Pte Ltd v Loong Sie Kiong Gerald [2009] SGHC 165 at [22]). In Wiseway Global Co Ltd v Qian Feng Group Ltd [2015] SGHC 85, George Wei JC (as he then was) provided useful guidance as to when leave to defend (conditional or unconditional) will be granted: … a li......
-
Calvin Klein, Inc and another v HS International Pte Ltd and others
...to support the bare assertions made in his affidavit on what he claims are the true facts: Wiseway Global Co Ltd v Qian Feng Group Ltd [2015] SGHC 85 at [33]. The key issues for I have set out above the principles to be applied in determining whether the Plaintiffs should succeed in their a......