Wyno Marine Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Lim Teck Cheng and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck JC
• Judgment Date: 14 October 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 340
• Published date: 20 April 2005
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: K Shanmugam SC [Allen & Gledhill]
• Defendant Counsel: Scott Thillagaratnam [Joseph Tan Jude Benny & Scott]

Between

WYNO MARINE PTE LTD (In Liquidation) ...Plaintiffs

And

3. ONG HOCK HOE trading as Lee & Kong Engineering Work
4.KONG FOOK PENG trading as Lee & Kong Engineering Work
5. LEE BENG CHONG trading as Lee & Kong Engineering Work
6. KOK LEE SENG trading as Lea Seng Sub-Contractor ...Defendants

Citation:	Suit No 2274 of 1993
Jurisdiction:	Singapore
Date:	1998:10:14
	1998:10:01 1998:09:07, 1997:11:17 - 1997:11:20
Court:	High Court
Coram:	Choo Han Teck JC
Counsel:	Mr K. Shanmugam SC (M/s Allen & Gledhill) for the Plaintiffs
	Mr Scott Thillagaratnam (M/s Ramdas & Wong) for the 1st, 2nd and 6th Defendants
	Mr Monoj Kumar Roy (M/s Roy & Partners) for the 1st Third Party.
	Mr Benjamin Goh (M/s Bernard Rada & Partners) for the 3rd Third Party
	The 3rd, 4th and 5th Defendants not represented

Judgment :

SUPPLEMENTAL JUDGMENT (Interests And Costs)

1. This is certainly a case in which interest should be awarded with the damages. The question is whether the plaintiffs should be given compound interest or simple interest.

2. There are some merits in the plaintiffs’ prayer that compound interest be awarded and that interests should run from the date of the breach, but I will exercise my discretion and award only simple interest. The plaintiffs relied on Wallersteiner v Moir (No. 2) [1975] 2 WLR 389 for the proposition that compound interest be awarded. In that case, Lord Denning M.R. held that compound interest should be awarded to give adequate compensation to the company because the money it was deprived of could have been used in its trading operations. He held that alternatively, the wrongdoer would be presumed to have made the most beneficial use of it and therefore that benefit should be returned to the company. Mr Thillagaratnam submitted that the Wallersteiner ruling applies only to a "live" and active trading company. I do not think that this interpretation of that principle is correct. It is a general principle that does not justify this restrictive approach. However, it is still a matter of the court’s discretion as to whether compound interest should be awarded. Although there had been no direct authority challenging the merits of the Wallersteiner enunciation, it remains a principle which is sparingly applied.

3. The award of compound interest is not so much to compensate a party as fully as possible, but as fairly as possible. Interest should also not be awarded as a form of penalty. In this case, I take the view that the plaintiffs will be adequately and fairly compensated by an award of simple interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the date of the writ.

4. Two questions were raised on the question of costs. The first arose from an application by Mr Thillagaratnam on behalf of Lim that since the plaintiffs failed in their claim for $98,086.59 the plaintiffs ought to pay Lim costs for this part of the action and he suggested, therefore, that the costs to be awarded to the plaintiffs should only be 75% because the part that the plaintiffs lost was about 25% of the claim.

5. Mr Kumar argued that the $98,086.59 claim was...