Chia Ee Lin Evelyn v Teh Guek Ngor Engelin: Breach of Contract & Oral Agreements

In Chia Ee Lin Evelyn v Teh Guek Ngor Engelin nee Tan and Others, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by Chia Ee Lin Evelyn against Teh Guek Ngor Engelin, Kau Yong Meng, Chen Lai Fong Tracy, and Koh Lee Kheng Florence for breach of a consultancy agreement. The defendants counterclaimed for a refund of overpayments and damages for breach of alleged oral agreements. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, ruling that the defendants were in repudiatory breach of the consultancy agreement and dismissing the defendants' counterclaims.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Chia Ee Lin Evelyn sued Teh Guek Ngor Engelin for breach of contract. The court found the defendants in repudiatory breach of the consultancy agreement.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chia Ee Lin EvelynPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWonK Shanmugam, Christopher Anand Daniel, Edmund Eng
Teh Guek Ngor Engelin nee TanDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedLostDavinder Singh, Harpreet Singh, Nicholas Tang
Kau Yong MengDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedLostDavinder Singh, Harpreet Singh, Nicholas Tang
Chen Lai Fong TracyDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedLostDavinder Singh, Harpreet Singh, Nicholas Tang
Koh Lee Kheng FlorenceDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Kew ChaiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
K ShanmugamAllen and Gledhill
Christopher Anand DanielAllen and Gledhill
Edmund EngAllen and Gledhill
Davinder SinghDrew and Napier LLC
Harpreet SinghDrew and Napier LLC
Nicholas TangDrew and Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff was a consultant at Engelin Teh & Partners.
  2. Plaintiff brought in significant business, including the land developer account.
  3. A consultancy agreement was in place, outlining profit-sharing arrangements.
  4. The land developer awarded five new development projects to the firm due to the plaintiff's efforts.
  5. The five projects were later withdrawn after a merger.
  6. Ms Teh demanded the plaintiff refund 15% of fees received under the April 2000 agreement.
  7. Plaintiff's consultancy was terminated shortly thereafter.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chia Ee Lin Evelyn v Teh Guek Ngor Engelin nee Tan and Others, Suit 1250/2002, [2004] SGHC 193

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff was called to the Singapore Bar
Plaintiff became a legal assistant at Ang, Ng and Lee
Ang, Ng and Lee dissolved
Plaintiff joined Colin Ng & Partners as junior partner
Plaintiff appointed as consultant at Colin Ng & Partners
Plaintiff left Colin Ng & Partners
Plaintiff joined Engelin Teh & Young as a consultant
Variation to the 9 September 1996 agreement
First partnership took over Ardmore Park development work
Plaintiff’s consultancy contract taken over by Engelin Teh & Partners
Plaintiff appointed solicitor for land developer
Fresh consultancy agreement between Engelin Teh & Partners and the plaintiff
Casabella Development ready for sale
Land developer merged with another company
Appointment as solicitors for the five projects terminated
Ms Teh asked to see the plaintiff in her office
Ms Teh wrote a memo to the plaintiff
Plaintiff collected her belongings from the office
Plaintiff sent a response to Ms Teh's memo
Suit 1250/2002 filed
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found the defendants in repudiatory breach of the consultancy agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Repudiatory breach
      • Wrongful termination
  2. Formation of Oral Contracts
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendants failed to prove the existence of the alleged oral agreements.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Intention to create legal relations
      • Objective test of intention
  3. Compromise Agreement
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendants failed to prove the existence of a binding compromise agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Intention to compromise
      • Binding agreement

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Account of sums due
  2. Payment of sums due
  3. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services
  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Aircharter World Pte Ltd v Kontena Nasional BhdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 3 SLR 1SingaporeCited for the objective test in determining whether parties have reached an agreement.
Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co LtdHigh CourtYes[2000] 3 SLR 405SingaporeCited for the objective test of agreement in contract formation.
SAL Industrial Leasing Ltd v Teck Koon (Motor) Trading (a firm)High CourtYes[1998] 2 SLR 325SingaporeCited for the principle that the intention to enter into a legally binding contract is an objective one.
R v Lord Chancellor’s Department, ex p NangleN/AYes[1991] ICR 743N/ACited for the principle that the question of intention to create legal relations is ascertained objectively.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Consultancy agreement
  • Profit share
  • Repudiatory breach
  • Oral agreement
  • Objective test
  • Termination
  • Land developer
  • Five projects
  • Ardmore Park development

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of contract
  • consultancy agreement
  • oral agreements
  • Singapore
  • High Court

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Consultancy Agreements
  • Commercial Disputes

17. Areas of Law

  • Contract Law
  • Breach of Contract
  • Civil Procedure