Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit: Limitation Act & Failure of Consideration

In Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding a claim for money had and received. Madam Ching, as executrix of Mr. Tan's estate, sought to recover $1,368,420.71 from Mr. Liu, arguing that the sum was paid under the mistaken assumption that Madam Lim had an interest in a property. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act and that a remedial constructive trust could not be imposed. The court held that the limitation period began when Mr. Tan discovered, or could have discovered with reasonable diligence, the mistake regarding Madam Lim's interest in the property, not when the Court of Appeal made its decision in a related case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a claim for money had and received due to failure of consideration. The court dismissed the appeal, finding the claim time-barred.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ching Mun FongAppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Liu Cho ChitRespondentIndividualClaim dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJudge of AppealYes
L P TheanJudge of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Josephine LowMichael Khoo & Partners
Michael KhooMichael Khoo & Partners
Harpal SinghHarpal Mahtani Partnership
C R RajahHarpal Mahtani Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Peng Ann Realty Pte Ltd purchased land in Kampong Chai Chee in 1972.
  2. Mr. Tan and Mr. Liu agreed to a joint venture to develop a portion of the land.
  3. Lee Kai Investments Pte Ltd agreed to sell the joint venture site to Madam Lim and Collin.
  4. The joint venture was not implemented, and the property remained vested in Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd.
  5. Mr. Liu claimed that he or his wife had an interest in the property and offered to sell it to Mr. Tan.
  6. Mr. Tan paid Mr. Liu US$642,451.04 as part payment for the alleged interest.
  7. The Court of Appeal determined that Madam Lim never had any interest in the property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit (No 2), CA 129/2000, [2001] SGCA 36

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Peng Ann Realty Pte Ltd purchased land at Kampong Chai Chee.
Peng Ann and Lee Kai Investments Pte Ltd signed an agreement for the sale of land.
Mr. Tan and Mr. Liu orally agreed to enter into a joint venture.
Sale of land by Peng Ann to Lee Kai was completed.
Government compulsorily acquired three lots of land.
Mr. Tan and Mr. Liu revived interests in developing the Property.
Mr. Tan handed Mr. Liu two cashiers orders for US$642,451.04 in Hong Kong.
Fook Gee Finance Ltd commenced an action against Mr. Liu.
Madam Lim commenced an action against Lee Tat, Mr. Tan, and Lee Kai.
Mr. Tan asserted in his affidavit that Madam Lim had no interest in the Property.
Court of Appeal delivered its judgment, dismissing Madam Lim's claim.
Madam Ching commenced proceedings against Mr. Liu.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Limitation of Actions
    • Outcome: The court held that the claim was time-barred because the plaintiff could have discovered the mistake earlier.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • When time begins to run
      • Relief from consequences of mistake
  2. Total Failure of Consideration
    • Outcome: The court determined that the claim for money had and received was subject to a six-year limitation period.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Remedial Constructive Trust
    • Outcome: The court held that a remedial constructive trust could not be imposed because the relationship was commercial and the funds were not kept distinct.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Recovery of money paid
  2. Imposition of a constructive trust

9. Cause of Actions

  • Money had and received
  • Failure of consideration
  • Mistake
  • Remedial constructive trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Kleinwort, Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber CoNot specifiedYesKleinwort, Sons & Co v Dunlop Rubber Co (1907) 97 LT 263England and WalesCited for the principle that a payer can recover payment from an agent if the agent has not paid it over to the principal.
Metal Und Rohstoff A G v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenerette Inc and AnorQueen's BenchNoMetal Und Rohstoff A G v Donaldson Lufkin & Jenerette Inc and Anor [1990] 1 QB 391England and WalesCited to define remedial constructive trust.
Westdeutsche Landesbank Gironzentrale v Islington London Borough County CouncilHouse of LordsNoWestdeutsche Landesbank Gironzentrale v Islington London Borough County Council [1996] AC 669England and WalesCited for discussion on remedial constructive trust and the requirements for establishing a trust.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Ed), ss 6(1)(a)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Ed), s 29(1)(c)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Limitation Act
  • Failure of consideration
  • Remedial constructive trust
  • Joint venture
  • Mistake
  • Time-barred
  • Executrix
  • Nominee

15.2 Keywords

  • Limitation Act
  • Restitution
  • Constructive Trust
  • Singapore Law
  • Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Limitation90
Contract Law75
Unjust Enrichment70
Trust Law60

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Restitution
  • Trust Law
  • Limitation of Actions