Mak Chik Lun v Loh Kim Her: Enforceability of Deed of Settlement under Moneylenders Act
In Mak Chik Lun and Others v Loh Kim Her and Others, the High Court of Singapore heard an application regarding the admissibility of certain affidavits in a case concerning the enforceability of a Deed of Settlement. The plaintiffs, Mak Chik Lun, Lo Pui Ling, and Katell Investment Co Pte Ltd, sued the defendants, Loh Kim Her, Goh Lan Kiaw, Harley Investments Pte Ltd, and Ivory Investments Pte Ltd, for breach of the Deed. The defendants argued the Deed was unenforceable due to contravention of the Moneylenders Act. The court allowed the plaintiffs' application to exclude affidavits related to loans made in China, finding them irrelevant to establishing moneylending activities in Singapore.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs’ application to exclude certain affidavits of evidence-in-chief allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed whether a Deed of Settlement was unenforceable under the Moneylenders Act due to alleged unlicensed moneylending activities.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mak Chik Lun | Plaintiff | Individual | Application Allowed | Won | |
| Lo Pui Ling | Plaintiff | Individual | Application Allowed | Won | |
| Katell Investment Co Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application Allowed | Won | |
| Loh Kim Her | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Goh Lan Kiaw | Defendant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Harley Investments Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ivory Investments Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs sued Defendants for breach of a Deed of Settlement dated 4 April 2001.
- Defendants claimed the Deed of Settlement was unenforceable due to contravention of the Moneylenders Act.
- Defendants alleged the 1st Plaintiff, Mak Chik Lun, carried on business as a moneylender without a license.
- Defendants filed affidavits to show loans made by Mak in Hong Kong and China.
- Plaintiffs applied to exclude the affidavits, arguing the Moneylenders Act applies only to activities in Singapore.
- The court considered whether foreign loan transactions were relevant to determining if Mak was a moneylender in Singapore.
5. Formal Citations
- Mak Chik Lun and Others v Loh Kim Her and Others, Suit 203/2002/H, 249/2002/F, [2003] SGHC 220
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Loan made by Tai Ping Yeung to Huaiji County | |
| Loan made by Zhong Yue Resources to Marine Product Board of Heshan City | |
| Loan made by Mak Chik Lun to Loh Nee Peng | |
| Loan transaction related to Deed of Settlement | |
| Loan made by Lo Pui Ling to Marubeni Auto (China & Asia) Ltd | |
| Loan made by Mak Chik Lun to Loh Kim Her | |
| Deed of Settlement signed | |
| Suits filed | |
| Defendants informed affidavits would be challenged | |
| Decision date |
7. Legal Issues
- Scope of Moneylenders Act
- Outcome: The court held that the Moneylenders Act is concerned with moneylending activities in Singapore, and evidence of foreign loans was not relevant to determine if the plaintiffs were carrying on the business of moneylending in Singapore.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Definition of moneylender
- Definition of business of moneylending
- Relevance of overseas transactions
8. Remedies Sought
- Unspecified remedies for breach of contract
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Deed of Settlement
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tozer Kemsley & Millbourn (A/Asia) Pty Ltd v Point | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [1961] NSWR 466 | Australia | Cited to support the argument that evidence of transactions entered outside the jurisdiction should be disregarded. |
| Walton v Regent Insurance Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [1962] 79 WN 644 | Australia | Cited to support the argument that evidence of transactions entered outside the jurisdiction should be disregarded. |
| Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 410 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statutes have no extraterritorial effect unless expressly provided by Parliament. |
| Public Prosecutor v Pong Tek Yin | High Court | Yes | [1990] SLR 575 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statutes have no extraterritorial effect unless expressly provided by Parliament. |
| Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 579 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that statutes have no extraterritorial effect unless expressly provided by Parliament. |
| R v Jameson | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [1896] 2QB 425 | England and Wales | Cited for the rule of construction that an Act will not be construed as applying to foreigners in respect to acts done by them outside the dominions of the sovereign power enacting. |
| Brooks Exim Pte Ltd v Bhagwandas | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 13 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that the Moneylenders Act is concerned with moneylending activities in Singapore and that the residence of the moneylender is immaterial. |
| Chellappah v Official Assignee | High Court | Yes | [1970] 1 MLJ 220 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the court is not prevented from taking into consideration loans made after the date of the relevant transaction in order to establish the required regularity, continuity and system in moneylending business. |
| Subramaniam Dhanapakiam v Ghaanthimathi | High Court | Yes | [1991] SLR 432 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is the business of moneylending and not the act of moneylending that the Act prohibits. |
| Litchfield v Dreyfus | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1906] 1 KB 584 | England and Wales | Followed in Brooks Exim Pte Ltd v Bhagwandas for the alternative test of whether the alleged moneylender is one who is ready and willing to lend to all and sundry provided that they are from his point of view eligible. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Moneylender
- Business of moneylending
- Deed of Settlement
- Moneylenders Act
- Extraterritorial effect
- System and continuity
- Rebuttal presumption
15.2 Keywords
- Moneylenders Act
- Singapore
- Loan
- Deed of Settlement
- Moneylending
- Affidavit
- Evidence
- Jurisdiction
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Moneylending Law | 95 |
| Credit and Security | 90 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 80 |
| Banking and Finance | 70 |
| Banking Law | 70 |
| Property Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Moneylending
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure