Sutjiawang Johanis v Tjia Eng Soei: Claim for Monies Lent and Shares
In a civil suit before the High Court of Singapore on 2002-04-30, Sutjiawang Johanis alias Tjia Eng Liong sued his brother, Tjia Eng Soei, for approximately 20 million Singapore dollars, claiming monies lent, the value of listed shares, proceeds from the sale of Apollo shares, and funds from foreign currency transactions. Tjia Eng Soei denied the claims and counterclaimed for an account of his alleged investment in an Indonesian bank. The court, presided over by Justice MPH Rubin, found in favor of Sutjiawang Johanis for most of his claims, dismissing Tjia Eng Soei's counterclaim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sutjiawang Johanis sues Tjia Eng Soei for monies lent and shares. The court found in favor of the plaintiff for most claims.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sutjiawang Johanis alias Tjia Eng Liong | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Tjia Eng Soei | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| MPH Rubin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff and defendant are brothers from a trading family in Indonesia.
- Defendant migrated to Singapore in the early 1970s and became involved in the stock market.
- Plaintiff claims the defendant owes him money for loans, shares, and foreign currency transactions.
- Defendant denies the claim, stating the funds were from his investment in an Indonesian bank held in the plaintiff's name.
- Plaintiff remitted monies to Singapore for investment in the stock market, managed by the defendant.
- Defendant's wife kept records of the transactions in account books.
- Plaintiff alleges the defendant sold his shares without authorization.
5. Formal Citations
- Sutjiawang Johanis alias Tjia Eng Liong v Tjia Eng Soei, Suit 600025/2000, [2002] SGHC 94
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant forwarded Hong Kong $100,000 to the plaintiff for investment in an Indonesian Bank known as P.T. Bank Pelita | |
| Defendant and his wife applied for permanent resident status in Singapore | |
| Defendant's family settled permanently in Singapore | |
| Start date of Book A records | |
| Plaintiff gave a power of attorney to the defendant | |
| ABN-AMRO Bank account opened in the name of the plaintiff | |
| End date of Book A records | |
| Start date of Book B records | |
| End date of Book B records | |
| Start date of Book C records | |
| Plaintiff issued cheque for $500,000 to Tjia Beng Thong | |
| Block of 2,145,100 Apollo shares sold | |
| Defendant withdrew $4,069,000 from Plaintiff's ABN-AMRO bank account | |
| Defendant issued cheque for $220,000 to Tjia Beng Thong | |
| Defendant issued cheque for $173,000 to Tjia Beng Thong | |
| Defendant issued cheque for $200,000 to Tjia Beng Thong | |
| Defendant issued cheque for $190,000 to Tjia Beng Thong | |
| Document written by Amelia Lanny Muslim | |
| Plaintiff issued cheque for $130,000 to Tjia Beng Thong | |
| Plaintiff issued cheque for $603,804.40 to Tjia Beng Thong | |
| End date of Book C records | |
| Amelia Lanny issued cheque for $43,937.94 to Dermawan | |
| Amelia Lanny issued cheque for $44,070.07 to Dermawan | |
| Amelia Lanny issued cheque for $272,899.71 to Dermawan | |
| Amelia Lanny issued cheque for $766.00 to Dermawan | |
| Amelia Lanny issued cheque for $1,411.38 to Dermawan | |
| Plaintiff paid $147,730.00 to the Defendant by way of POSB cheque no. 751508 for the quantity of 187,000 Apollo shares | |
| Magnum Shares were transferred to the Plaintiff’s direct account with Kay Hian Private Limited | |
| Date of writ | |
| Judgment date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant breached the agreement by not returning the shares or their value.
- Category: Substantive
- Trust
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant held the shares in trust for the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Ownership of Shares
- Outcome: The court ruled that the shares belonged to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The court discussed the burden of proof in establishing ownership.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Return of Shares
- Account of Profits
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Trust
- Conversion
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Banking Litigation
- Trust Litigation
- Securities Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
- Banking
- Investment
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sime Darby and Company Ltd v Official Assignee | Privy Council | Yes | Sime Darby and Company Ltd v Official Assignee (1939) Vol 1 MC 116 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden of proof in legal proceedings, stating that it is immaterial when all circumstances are ascertained. |
| Robins v National Trust Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | Robins v National Trust Co Ltd [1927] AC 515 | N/A | Cited regarding the burden of proof in legal proceedings, stating that it is immaterial when all circumstances are ascertained. |
| R v Jacobson v Levy | N/A | Yes | R v Jacobson v Levy 1931 AD 466 | N/A | Cited to define prima facie evidence. |
| Pan-Electric Industries Ltd (In Liquidation) v Sim Lim Finance Ltd & Ors | N/A | Yes | Pan-Electric Industries Ltd (In Liquidation) v Sim Lim Finance Ltd & Ors [1993] 3 SLR 242 | Singapore | Cited regarding the burden of proving ownership of shares. |
| Imperial Bank of Canada v Begley | N/A | Yes | Imperial Bank of Canada v Begley [1936] 2 All ER 367 | N/A | Cited regarding the limitations of a power of attorney. |
| Reckitt v Barnett, Pembroke and Slater Ltd | N/A | Yes | Reckitt v Barnett, Pembroke and Slater Ltd [1929] AC 176 | N/A | Cited regarding the limitations of a power of attorney. |
| Huang Han Chao v Leong Fook Meng & Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | Huang Han Chao v Leong Fook Meng & Anor [1991] SLR 286 | Singapore | Cited regarding the appropriateness of granting relief not inconsistent with the relief sought in the pleadings. |
| Cargill v Bower | N/A | Yes | Cargill v Bower (1878) 38 LT 779 | N/A | Cited regarding the requirement that a plaintiff specifies at least one of the reliefs he may wish to claim. |
| Belmont Finance Corp Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd & Ors | English Court of Appeal | Yes | Belmont Finance Corp Ltd v Williams Furniture Ltd & Ors [1979] Ch 250 | England | Cited regarding the requirement that a plaintiff specifies at least one of the reliefs he may wish to claim. |
| Mokhtar v Arumugam | Court of Appeal of the Federation of Malaya | Yes | Mokhtar v Arumugam [1959] MLJ 232 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the requirement that a plaintiff specifies at least one of the reliefs he may wish to claim. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of the Supreme Court 1970 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Shares
- Loans
- Power of Attorney
- Account Books
- Bank Pelita
- Remittances
- Beneficial Ownership
- ABN-AMRO Bank
- Apollo Shares
15.2 Keywords
- shares
- loans
- investment
- singapore
- contract
- trust
- banking
- stock market
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Trust Law | 70 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Commercial Disputes | 50 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Misrepresentation | 40 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 40 |
| Banking and Finance | 30 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 30 |
| Estoppel | 30 |
| Damages | 30 |
| Company Law | 30 |
| Property Law | 20 |
| Agency Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Contract Law
- Securities Law
- Banking
- Financial Disputes