This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
In the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
[1997] SGHC 112
Suit 4141/1983, 4149/1984
Between
Fook Gee Finance Company Limited |
… Plaintiff
And
Liu Cho Chit |
… Defendant
grounds of decision
This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. |
Fook Gee Finance Company Limited v Liu Cho Chit
[1997] SGHC 112
Suit 4141/1983, 4149/1984
Lai Siu Chiu J
30 April 1997
Lai Siu Chiu J
30 April 1997
1
JUDGMENT:
JUDGMENT:
2 Cur Adv Vult
3 The undisputed facts
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12 Special Condition 1
13
14 Special Condition 4
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24 The plaintiff's claim in Suit 4149 of 1984
25 (i) Madam Lim's testimony
26
27 (ii) Liu's version of events
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43 re: Mukim XXVIII Lot 1606
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59 Again, on 14 September 1981, Liu wrote to Lee Tat stating as such (AB 167):
60 I write further to my letters to you concerning the above matter.
61
62
63
64 (iii) Yang Soo Suan's testimony
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72 The defendants' case
73
74
75
76
77
78 Madam Ching Mun Fong's testimony
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86 Suit 4141 of 1983
87 (i) The plaintiff's case
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95 (ii) The defendant's case
96
97 (a) US$642,451.04 on 23 April 1981;
98 (b) US$293,555.99 on or before the end of April 1981; and
99 (c) balance of S$1.8m within a reasonable date thereafter.
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111 (1) The purchase price is $12 million.
112 ....
113
114
115 Re: US$642,451.04 (Loan)
116
117
118
119 ....
120
121
122 ....
123
124
125
126
127 As the matter could not be resolved, Suit 4141 of 1983 was commenced by Tan.
128 The decision
129 (i) Suit 4141 of 1983
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141 (ii) Suit 4149 of 1984
142
143 Fraudulent misrepresentation and mistake
144
145
146 Saunders
v Anglia Building SocietyLee Siew Chun v Sourgrapes Packaging Products Trading Pte Ltd
& Ors [1993] 2 SLR 297).
v Anglia Building SocietyLee Siew Chun v Sourgrapes Packaging Products Trading Pte Ltd
& Ors [1993] 2 SLR 297).
147
148 Non-existence of LeeTat at time of the Sub-sale Agreement
149
150
151 Whether Madam Lim had a beneficial interest in Lot 1606
152
153 Having examined the evidence, I came to the conclusion that Liu did not -- this must be so, based on their conduct.
154
155
156 Q: Put that your husband was a man who was extremely careful with his money?
157 A: Yes.
158 Q: So he knew the value of a contract?
159 A: Yes he was very careful with contracts.
160 Q: If for one moment he was not handed any money he would never have acknowledged
receipt of the same?
receipt of the same?
161 A: If money was received, our company would definitely issue a receipt.
162 Q: If your husband did not receive money, he would not have acknowledged receipt?
163 A: Yes.
164 Q: Especially if he had not received money in a written document?
165 A: Explain?
166 Q: (Repeats question)
167 A: Unless it was a blackmail.
168 Q: You testified PW2 [Liu] was untrustworthy. Did he strike you as being a
blackmailer as well?
blackmailer as well?
169 A: 100% yes.
170 Q: Has he ever blackmailed you?
171 A: No.
172 A: Has he ever extorted money from you?
173 Q: No.
174
175
176
177 I note that the court in Suit No 1487 of 1987 (see Peng Ann Realty Pte Ltd v Liu Cho
Chit & Ors [1994] 3 SLR 576Ching Mun Fong & Anor v Peng Ann Realty
& Anor [1995] 2 SLR 541
Chit & Ors [1994] 3 SLR 576Ching Mun Fong & Anor v Peng Ann Realty
& Anor [1995] 2 SLR 541
178
179
180 Q: All in all I would say you are very pro-active in the management of your
companies in Hong Kong and Singapore.
companies in Hong Kong and Singapore.
181 A: I am a very conscientious person in my work.
182 Q: I don't dispute that. That is why it is not possible you did not read any of the
architects' letters or Liu's letters.
architects' letters or Liu's letters.
183 A: I don't know the answer.
184 Q: Try telling the truth?
185 A: I have never lied.
186 Court to DW1: Your answers are inconsistent.
187
188
189 Whether the joint venture had been abandoned
190
191
192
193 an approximate area of 5 acres as shown and edged in red
in the plan annexed
in the plan annexed
194 Chitty on Contracts 27 ed Vol 1 p 1081 para 22-024).
195
196
197
198
199 The fourth defendant's case
200 11 September 1973
201 Whether Madam Lim's claim is time-barred
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210 (iv) against the fourth defendant Collin Tan.
211
212 Lai Siu Chiu
213 Judge
Lai Siu Chiu J |
Michael Khoo (as counsel) with Josephine Low and Jimmy Yap (Donaldson & Burkinshaw) for the plaintiffs in Suit 4141 of 1983 and for the first, second and third defendants in Suit 4149/1984
Woo Tchi Chu (as counsel) and Harpal Singh (Harpal, Wong & M Seow) for the defendant in Suit 4141/1983 and for the plaintiff in Suit 4149 of 1984
Ajaib Haridass and Thomas Tan (Haridass Ho & Partners) for the fourth defendant in Suit 4149/1984
Woo Tchi Chu (as counsel) and Harpal Singh (Harpal, Wong & M Seow) for the defendant in Suit 4141/1983 and for the plaintiff in Suit 4149 of 1984
Ajaib Haridass and Thomas Tan (Haridass Ho & Partners) for the fourth defendant in Suit 4149/1984
This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
Version No 1: 11 Sep 2026 (01:05 hrs)