Lim Eng Beng v Siow Soon Kim: Partnership Dispute Over Undistributed Assets and Profits
In the case of Lim Eng Beng alias Lim Jia Le v Siow Soon Kim and Others, heard in the High Court of Singapore on 2003-07-09, the plaintiff, Lim Eng Beng, sued the defendants, including Siow Soon Kim and Kim Meng Supplier, for damages and accounts related to undistributed assets and profits from their partnership. The plaintiff claimed entitlement to a one-third share of the partnership assets upon his withdrawal. The defendants denied the claim, but elected not to present evidence. The court found the defense's submission of 'no case' to be without substance and entered interlocutory judgment in favor of the plaintiff, ordering damages to be assessed and accounts and inquiries to be made.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Interlocutory judgment was entered in favor of the plaintiff with damages to be assessed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Partnership dispute where Lim Eng Beng sued Siow Soon Kim for undistributed assets and profits. The court entered interlocutory judgment for Lim, ordering damages to be assessed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Eng Beng alias Lim Jia Le | Plaintiff | Individual | Interlocutory Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | A Rajandran |
| Siow Soon Kim | Defendant | Individual | Interlocutory Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | Harbajan Singh, Ronald Lee |
| Chua Beng Guek | Defendant | Individual | Interlocutory Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | Harbajan Singh, Ronald Lee |
| Siow Soon Geok | Defendant | Individual | Interlocutory Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | Harbajan Singh, Ronald Lee |
| Siow Soon Lye | Defendant | Individual | Interlocutory Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | Harbajan Singh, Ronald Lee |
| Kim Meng Supplier | Defendant | Partnership | Interlocutory Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | Harbajan Singh, Ronald Lee |
| S S Kim Enterprises Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Interlocutory Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | Harbajan Singh, Ronald Lee |
| ASD Trading Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Interlocutory Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | Harbajan Singh, Ronald Lee |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| MPH Rubin | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| A Rajandran | A Rajandran Joseph & Nayar |
| Harbajan Singh | Daisy Yeo & Co |
| Ronald Lee | Daisy Yeo & Co |
4. Facts
- Lim Eng Beng and Siow Soon Kim registered Kim Meng Supplier partnership on 1985-04-25.
- The partnership supplied frozen food and provisions to restaurants and enterprises.
- Lim Eng Beng withdrew from the partnership on 2001-07-18.
- Lim Eng Beng claimed he was entitled to one-third of the partnership assets.
- The defendants denied Lim Eng Beng's entitlement and elected not to give evidence.
- The partnership accounts revealed an understatement of sales of approximately S$7.8 million.
- The first defendant suggested monies received from cash sales be kept aside in a separate bank account.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Eng Beng alias Lim Jia Le v Siow Soon Kim and Others, Suit 140/2002, [2003] SGHC 146
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Kim Meng Supplier partnership firm registered in Singapore. | |
| Chua Beng Guek became a partner of the firm. | |
| ASD Trading Pte Ltd incorporated in Singapore. | |
| Lim Eng Beng sent a notice of withdrawal from the partnership. | |
| Lim Eng Beng withdrew from the partnership. | |
| S S Kim Enterprises Pte Ltd incorporated in Singapore. | |
| Plaintiff’s statement of claim filed. | |
| Anton Piller Order executed on the Defendants’ premises. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants likely breached their fiduciary duties to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to act bona fide in relation to partnership affairs
- Misrepresentation of accounting entries
- Misappropriation of funds
- Accounting Irregularities
- Outcome: The court found substantial accounting irregularities in the partnership's accounts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Understatement of sales
- Exaggeration of expenses
- Concealment of profits
- Entitlement to Partnership Assets
- Outcome: The court declared that the plaintiff was entitled to a one-third share of the partnership assets up to the date of his withdrawal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Determination of partnership share
- Valuation of assets
- Distribution of profits
- Submission of No Case
- Outcome: The court found the defendant's submission of no case to be premature, ill-founded, and lacking in substance.
- Category: Procedural
- Illegality (Tax Evasion)
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff's acquiescence in a scheme to defraud the Inland Revenue did not debar him from receiving his lawful entitlement from the partnership.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
- Accounts and Inquiries
- Tracing of Assets
- Injunction
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Accounting for Undistributed Partnership Assets
- Recovery of Losses
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Accounting Disputes
11. Industries
- Food Supply
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Central Bank of India v Hemant Govindprasad Bansal & Ors | High Court | Yes | [2002] 3 SLR 190 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a defendant's failure to adduce evidence can be fatal to their case if the plaintiff has presented prima facie evidence. |
| Yuill v Yuill | N/A | Yes | [1945] PD 15 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a submission of no case can be made if no case has been established in law or the evidence led is unsatisfactory. |
| Euro-Diam Ltd v Bathhurst | N/A | No | [1988] 2 All ER 23 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle of public policy that courts will not assist a plaintiff guilty of illegal conduct, but this principle was distinguished in the present case. |
| Tinsley v Milligan | House of Lords | No | [1993] 3 All ER 65 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the principle of illegality and its effect on property interests, but noted that some views expressed in this case were criticised. |
| Nelson v Nelson | High Court of Australia | No | (1995) 184 CLR 538 | Australia | Cited as a case that criticised some views expressed in Tinsley v Milligan regarding the presumption of advancement. |
| Bowmakers, Ltd v Barnet Instruments Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1944] 2 All ER 579 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a person's right to possess their own chattels will be enforced even if the chattels came into the defendant's possession by reason of an illegal contract, provided the plaintiff does not need to rely on the illegal contract to support their claim. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Partnership
- Undistributed Assets
- Accounting Irregularities
- Fiduciary Duty
- Withdrawal
- Submission of No Case
- Anton Piller Order
- Cash Sales
- Loans
- Inland Revenue
15.2 Keywords
- partnership
- accounting
- fiduciary duty
- assets
- profits
- Singapore
- fraud
- tax evasion
16. Subjects
- Partnership Dispute
- Accounting Irregularities
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
17. Areas of Law
- Partnership Law
- Accounting Law
- Civil Procedure