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
[1994] SGHC 195
S993/1990
Between
Trudina Investments Pte Ltd |
… Plaintiff
And
Virginia Industries Pte Ltd |
… 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. |
Trudina Investments Pte Ltd v Virginia Industries Pte Ltd
[1994] SGHC 195
S993/1990
Lai Siu Chiu J
29 July 1994
Lai Siu Chiu J
29 July 1994
1
Judgment:
Judgment:
2 Coram: Lai Siu Chiu J
3 Cur Adv Vult
4 JUDGMENT
5 The facts
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13 The Fuji brothers then discovered that the professional engineer appointed to supervise
the installation of the plant had resigned and that the defendants were carrying on with
installation in the factory without approval from the Building Control Division (BCD);
they expressed their concern to Sekine in May 1990 (see AB100A and 165A). By then Sekine
had contacted Hitachi Zosen Singapore (Pte) Ltd (Hitachi) on the 100 formulas K Fuji had
handed to the defendants previously. T Fuji had previously acted as an aquaculture
consultant to Hitachi. By letter dated 14 May 1990 (AB167A) Hitachi confirmed to the
defendants that they had compared the 100 formulas of the plaintiffs with their own and
had found out some formulae are just identical or very close to < theirs > .
the installation of the plant had resigned and that the defendants were carrying on with
installation in the factory without approval from the Building Control Division (BCD);
they expressed their concern to Sekine in May 1990 (see AB100A and 165A). By then Sekine
had contacted Hitachi Zosen Singapore (Pte) Ltd (Hitachi) on the 100 formulas K Fuji had
handed to the defendants previously. T Fuji had previously acted as an aquaculture
consultant to Hitachi. By letter dated 14 May 1990 (AB167A) Hitachi confirmed to the
defendants that they had compared the 100 formulas of the plaintiffs with their own and
had found out some formulae are just identical or very close to < theirs > .
14
15
16
17 The claim
18
19
20
21
22 The plaintiffs prayed for
23
24 In the defence the defendants
25
26 The defendants counterclaimed from the plaintiffs
27
28 The plaintiffs' case
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39 The defendants' case
40
41
42 As for the agreement, in Sekine's view:
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50 When re-examined Sekine clarified
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60 The last witness for the defendants was Kawachi (DW5) who said:
61
62 The Submissions
63
64
65
66 Counsel for the plaintiffs countered her opponent's arguments as follows:-
67
68 The plaintiffs were unable to supervise the installation of the machines as:
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76 The findings
77
78
79
80 In summary what the plaintiffs provided under the agreement were the following:
81
82
83
84 I accept that the test to be applied as to whether there has been a breach is that set
out by Diplock LJ in Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd < 1962
> 1 AER 474. If I may paraphrase Diplock LJ's test (at p 488 letter I) what the court
has to do where one party relies on a breach by the other party as giving him (the
plaintiffs in this case) a right to elect to rescind the contract is to look at the events
which have occurred as a result of the breach at the time at which the defendants
purported to rescind the contract and to decide whether the occurrence of those events
deprived the defendants of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of
the parties as expressed in the agreement that the defendants should obtain from the
further performance of their own contractual undertakings.
out by Diplock LJ in Hong Kong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd < 1962
> 1 AER 474. If I may paraphrase Diplock LJ's test (at p 488 letter I) what the court
has to do where one party relies on a breach by the other party as giving him (the
plaintiffs in this case) a right to elect to rescind the contract is to look at the events
which have occurred as a result of the breach at the time at which the defendants
purported to rescind the contract and to decide whether the occurrence of those events
deprived the defendants of substantially the whole benefit which it was the intention of
the parties as expressed in the agreement that the defendants should obtain from the
further performance of their own contractual undertakings.
85 Applying the foregoing test it is clear that the defendants were not in breach when
they did not pay the management fee for April 1990. In this regard I turn to a case cited
by the defendants to support their stand but which the plaintiffs submit has no
application, namely Fercometal SARL v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA < 1988 > 2 AER
742.
they did not pay the management fee for April 1990. In this regard I turn to a case cited
by the defendants to support their stand but which the plaintiffs submit has no
application, namely Fercometal SARL v Mediterranean Shipping Co SA < 1988 > 2 AER
742.
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
Lai Siu Chiu J |
Zahara Bakar (Tan Rajah & Cheah) for the plaintiffs
Patrick Chong (Ong Tan Nair & Kwek) for the defendants
Patrick Chong (Ong Tan Nair & Kwek) for the defendants
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)