Eka Tjipta Widjaja v Fifi: Loan Repayment Dispute over Signature Park Property
In Eka Tjipta Widjaja v Fifi, the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding the repayment of a $700,000 loan. Eka Tjipta Widjaja claimed that Fifi borrowed the money to purchase a property. Fifi argued that the money was a gift and that she was misled about the nature of the acknowledgment of debt document. The High Court allowed Widjaja's appeal and granted judgment in his favor, finding that Fifi had no valid defense to the claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Eka Tjipta Widjaja sued Fifi for failing to repay a $700,000 loan. The court allowed Widjaja's appeal, finding Fifi had no valid defense.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eka Tjipta Widjaja | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Fifi | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Cyrus J Patel | Dave, Shaun, Patel Partnership |
| George Pereira | Pereira & Tan |
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff claimed the Defendant borrowed $700,000 to purchase a property.
- The Defendant acknowledged the debt in a document dated 7 Oct 1998.
- The Defendant claimed the property was a gift and she was misled about the document.
- The Plaintiff and Defendant had a relationship.
- The Plaintiff paid for the Signature Park property.
- The Defendant purchased furniture and accessories for the Signature Park property.
5. Formal Citations
- Eka Tjipta Widjaja v Fifi, Suit 1028/2000, [2002] SGHC 38
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Agreement dated for $700,000 loan. | |
| Writ of summons served on the Defendant by way of substituted service. | |
| Judgment in default of appearance entered against the Defendant. | |
| Defendant applied to set aside the default judgment. | |
| Deputy Registrar set aside the default judgment. | |
| Plaintiff filed Reply and Defence to Counterclaim and applied for summary judgment. | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant had no valid defense to the Plaintiff's claim for breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1936] MLJ Rep. 62
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyagaraja Mudaliar & Another v. Vedathanni | Privy Council | Yes | [1936] MLJ Rep. 62 | India | Cited regarding oral evidence in disproof of an alleged agreement. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 14 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Acknowledgement of Debt
- Signature Park
- Loan
- Gift
- Power of Attorney
15.2 Keywords
- loan
- contract
- property
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Property Law | 70 |
| Trust Law | 60 |
| Loan Agreement | 50 |
| Estoppel | 40 |
| Undue Influence | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Loan Agreement
- Property Law