Hinckley Singapore Trading Pte Ltd v Sogo Department Stores: Agency, Trust, and Judicial Management

Hinckley Singapore Trading Pte Ltd applied to the High Court of Singapore for leave to commence proceedings against Sogo Department Stores (S) Pte Ltd, which was under judicial management, to determine whether moneys collected by Sogo on behalf of Hinckley, pursuant to a concessionaire agreement, were held on trust by Sogo for Hinckley. The High Court dismissed Hinckley's application, holding that the moneys were not trust moneys and that Hinckley did not have a proprietary claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Insolvency

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for leave to commence proceedings against Sogo, under judicial management, to determine if funds collected on behalf of Hinckley were held in trust. The court dismissed the application.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Hinckley Singapore Trading Pte LtdApplicantCorporationApplication DismissedLost
Sogo Department Stores (S) Pte LtdRespondentCorporationApplication DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Adrian WongAllen & Gledhill
Chan Hian YoungAllen & Gledhill
Lee Eng BengRajah & Tann
Melissa LeeRajah & Tann

4. Facts

  1. Sogo operated a department store in the Raffles City Complex.
  2. Hinckley was granted a concession to sell Polo Ralph Lauren goods in Sogo's department store.
  3. Customers paid Sogo's cashiers directly for Hinckley's goods.
  4. Sogo was to deduct a 20% commission from the sales of Hinckley's goods.
  5. The balance of the sales proceeds was to be paid to Hinckley within 15 days of the end of each month.
  6. Sogo collected over $200,000 on behalf of Hinckley between May and July 2000.
  7. Interim judicial managers were appointed for Sogo on 19 July 2000.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Re Sogo Department Stores (S) Pte Ltd, OP 14/2000, [2001] SGHC 70

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Concessionaire agreement signed between Sogo and Hinckley.
Start of period for which Sogo collected money on behalf of Hinckley.
End of period for which Sogo collected money on behalf of Hinckley.
Interim judicial managers appointed in respect of Sogo.
Concession ended.
Order made by the High Court placing Sogo under judicial management.
Hinckley's lawyers requested payment from Sogo's judicial managers.
Hinckley's claim that the moneys were trust moneys was rejected.
Application dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether moneys collected by an agent for a principal are held on trust
    • Outcome: The court held that the moneys were not trust moneys because Sogo was not required to keep the funds separate from its own.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Proprietary right to moneys claimed
    • Outcome: The court held that Hinckley did not have a proprietary right to the moneys claimed.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Leave to commence proceedings against a company in judicial management
    • Outcome: The court determined that Hinckley did not have a seriously arguable case and therefore leave to commence proceedings was denied.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Determination that moneys collected by Sogo were held on trust for Hinckley
  2. Payment of $212,212.99

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Insolvency Law

11. Industries

  • Retail

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Re Atlantic Computer Systems plc (No 1)English Court of AppealYes[1991] BCLC 606England and WalesCited for the principle that an applicant must show a seriously arguable case to obtain leave to commence proceedings against a company in judicial management.
Henry v HammondKing's Bench DivisionYes[1913] 2 KB 515England and WalesCited for the principle that a recipient of money is only a trustee if they are bound to keep the money separate, otherwise they are merely a debtor.
Re Fleet Disposal Services LtdHigh CourtNo[1995] 1 BCLC 345England and WalesCited as an example where a trust was found to exist due to the intention of the parties and the arrangements made regarding the money.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Companies Act (Cap 50, 1994 Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Judicial management
  • Agency
  • Trust
  • Concessionaire agreement
  • Proprietary right
  • Leave to commence proceedings

15.2 Keywords

  • Agency
  • Trust
  • Judicial Management
  • Insolvency
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Commercial Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Agency Law90
Insolvency Law80
Judicial Management75
Company Law70
Trusts and Estates70
Contract Law70
Proprietary Rights65
Commercial Law60
Corporate Law50
Breach of Contract50
Business Law40
Bankruptcy40
Shipping Agent35
Property Law30
Administrative Law30
Investments20
Banking and Finance20

16. Subjects

  • Agency
  • Trusts
  • Company Law
  • Insolvency