1 
Judgment:

2 GROUNDS OF DECISION

3 The background

4 

5 

6 The application

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 The arguments (i) the defendant's arguments

29 

30 

31 6C. Contrary to the plaintiffs' claim that their statements

are conclusive, where payment has been made under a mistake of

fact, it can be recovered by the payee (Borneo Motors (S) Pte Ltd

v William Jacks & Co (S) Pte Ltd < 1992 > 2 SLR 881).

The defendant was not aware, at the time he paid the plaintiffs,

of their scam, otherwise he would not have paid.

32 

33 (ii) the plaintiffs' arguments

34 

35 

36 10. The defendant had attempted to cast doubt on the bona

fides of the transactions despite the plaintiffs having furnished

documentary evidence to prove the execution of his orders and the

losses resulting therefrom. The statements which were sent to the

defendant were conclusive, under cl 11C of the agreement, if the

defendant did not dispute them within 5 working days after their

transmission to him (Bangkok Bank Ltd v Prosperity Shipping &

Trading (Pte) Ltd < 1990 > 1 MLJ xxix; Halsbury's Laws Vol

17 p 22 28). The defendant had acknowledged his losses by making

payment of S$52,180 by instalments, the concession of instalment

payments was granted by the plaintiffs to avoid antagonism and

legal proceedings at the time; there was no complaint by the

defendant to the authorities about bucketing or at all. In any

event bucketing would not have been possible due to the

safeguards implemented by the plaintiffs when dealers executed

orders for customers as described in Too's second affidavit.

37 

38 The decision

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 Lai Siu Chiu

46 Judge