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
[1998] SGHC 157
Suit 1240/1996
Between
ECRC Land Pte Ltd |
… Plaintiff
And
Wuu Khek Chiang, George |
… 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. |
ECRC Land Pte Ltd v Wuu Khek Chiang, George
[1998] SGHC 157
Suit 1240/1996
Judith Prakash J
09 May 1998
Judith Prakash J
09 May 1998
1
Judgment:
Judgment:
2 Cur Adv Vult
3
4 Background
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27 The proceedings
28
29
30 The pleadings
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
‘(5) The oral agreement for the procurement of Land
Office’s approval to the assignment was therefore as follows:This meant first raising the authorised capital from $100,000 to
$1.5 million.(e) The Plaintiffs become [sic] a company owning only the Lease
in the Land, not the cash of $1.5 million as well.(i) The appropriate directors’ resolution for the Plaintiffs
authorising the payment out of the $1.5 million from the Plaintiffs was to be passed
before Lawrence Phang (Grande’s representative) was appointed a director of the
Plaintiffs and
Office’s approval to the assignment was therefore as follows:This meant first raising the authorised capital from $100,000 to
$1.5 million.(e) The Plaintiffs become [sic] a company owning only the Lease
in the Land, not the cash of $1.5 million as well.(i) The appropriate directors’ resolution for the Plaintiffs
authorising the payment out of the $1.5 million from the Plaintiffs was to be passed
before Lawrence Phang (Grande’s representative) was appointed a director of the
Plaintiffs and
41
42 Issues
43 36. The issues which I now have to determine are:
(3) whether oral evidence of the alleged agreement is admissible;
44 The issues relating to the oral agreement
45
46 (1) The evidence: (a) for the plaintiffs
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62 (b) for the defendant
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
‘1.2 BackgroundThe 3 parties agreed that share capital for ECRC Land to be $1.5 m and
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110 Findings
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130 Sarkar on Evidence as follows:
Sarkar on Evidence, 4thandSarkar on Evidence, 4th
131
132
133
134 The defendant’s liability
135
136 121. As Woon and Hicks state in their book The Companies Act of
Singapore: An Annotation, 1994
Singapore: An Annotation, 1994
137
138
Re National Funds Assurance Co Moxham v Grant [1900] 1 QB 88.’
139
140
141 Conclusion
142
143 JUDITH PRAKASH
144 JUDGE
Judith Prakash J |
Chia Ho Choon with Andrew Wong (Bih Li & Lee) for the plaintiffs
Tan Soo Kiang with Chiah Kok Khun and Wong Hur Wuin (Wee Swee Teow & Co) for the defendant
Tan Soo Kiang with Chiah Kok Khun and Wong Hur Wuin (Wee Swee Teow & Co) for the defendant
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)