Chia Kin Tuck v Leong Choon Kum: Claim for Money Had and Received Dispute

In Chia Kin Tuck v Leong Choon Kum, the Singapore High Court addressed six appeals concerning the ownership of $1 million claimed by Chia Kin Tuck (plaintiff) from Leong Choon Kum and Chua Lan (defendants) in a claim for money had and received. The District Court initially found that the first defendant received the sum from the plaintiff but dismissed the claim because the sum did not belong to him beneficially. The High Court dismissed all six appeals but varied the judgment, ordering the second defendant to return the $1 million with interest to the plaintiff's solicitors, pending resolution of the issue of who actually owns the sum beneficially.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed; judgment varied to order the second defendant to return $1 million with interest to the plaintiff's solicitors, pending resolution of beneficial ownership.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed a dispute over $1 million, determining whether the plaintiff owned the funds in a claim for money had and received.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chia Kin TuckPlaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeals dismissed; judgment variedPartialKoh Tien Hua, Michelle Elias
Leong Choon KumDefendant, Respondent, AppellantIndividualAppeals dismissedNeutralSarjeet Singh
Chua LanDefendant, Respondent, AppellantIndividualAppeals dismissed; ordered to return $1 million with interestLostJimmy Yim, Andrew Ho

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Koh Tien HuaHarry Elias Partnership
Michelle EliasHarry Elias Partnership
Sarjeet SinghOng Tan and Nair
Jimmy YimDrew and Napier LLC
Andrew HoDrew and Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff claimed to have passed $1 million to the first defendant.
  2. Defendants claimed that the money came from the second defendant.
  3. The money was deposited into Australian banks.
  4. The first defendant allowed the second defendant to operate the CBA account.
  5. The first defendant transferred the deposits to an account in the name of the second defendant.
  6. The plaintiff and first defendant divorced on 7 January 2000.
  7. The plaintiff ran a family business called Hoo Sun.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chia Kin Tuck v Leong Choon Kum and Another, DC(T) 600872/2000, DA 23/2003, 24/2003, 25/2003, 38/2003, 39/2003, 40/2003, [2005] SGHC 1

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Second defendant began running a brothel in Geylang.
First defendant began working as a conveyancing clerk.
Plaintiff married the first defendant.
Second defendant was widowed.
First and second defendants met.
First defendant introduced the plaintiff to the second defendant.
Second defendant retired from running a brothel.
Eu Yok Chan gave the second defendant cash of $250,000.
Eu Yok Chan gave the second defendant cash of $95,000.
First defendant began keeping cash of $160,000 in her flat.
Second defendant and Mdm Eu sold a Housing and Development Board flat.
Plaintiff's mother, Chong Siew Kum, passed away.
Singapore government imposed restrictions and capital gains tax on property transactions.
Plaintiff transferred $2.48m from a Bank of China account to his OUB account.
Plaintiff transferred $2.48m from a Bank of China account to his OUB account.
Plaintiff opened a safe deposit box with OCBC bank.
Plaintiff withdrew $500,000 from his OUB account and opened a safe deposit box in the second defendant's name.
Plaintiff lodged a police report against his brothers.
Second defendant's mother sold her HDB flat.
Plaintiff purchased a bank draft for A$430,016.92.
Second defendant handed cash of $500,000 to the first defendant.
First defendant left for Australia with the sons.
First defendant deposited A$430,016.92 into CBA in her name.
First defendant returned to Singapore.
Plaintiff withdrew $200,000 from his OUB account.
Settlement agreement signed at the office of Chia's lawyer.
Plaintiff withdrew $300,000 from his OUB account.
Plaintiff purchased a draft for A$448,139.85 in the first defendant’s name.
Second defendant handed her $500,000 cash.
First defendant signed an acknowledgement of debt in favour of the plaintiff.
First defendant deposited A$448,139.85 into the ANZ account in her name.
First defendant converted the commercial bill account holding A$430,016.92 with CBA into a term deposit account.
Second defendant visited Brisbane.
First defendant gave the second defendant a mandate to operate the term deposit with CBA.
Second defendant endorsed on the acknowledgements of receipt dated 17 and 30 September 1996, that she had been repaid the sums of $480,000 and $500,000 respectively.
Second defendant signed a contract for completion of her purchase on 28 November 1997.
Second defendant left Australia.
Plaintiff allegedly met up with the first and second defendants in Australia.
Term deposit with CBA was split into four term deposit accounts.
Transfers were effected to the second defendant’s new account.
Term deposit 4 was closed.
First defendant’s Access account with ANZ was closed.
Ng drafted an agreement similar to that dated 28 June 1996, but this time governing only the first defendant’s usage of the first box.
Balance in the first defendant’s Streamline account of A$117.95 was also transferred to the second defendant’s account.
Plaintiff allegedly met up with the first and second defendants in Australia.
First box was closed.
Second box was opened.
First defendant’s letter authorising the transfer to the second defendant’s account.
Second defendant visited Brisbane for the second time.
Term deposit 1 was closed.
Amounts in the four accounts were transferred to the second defendant’s account with CBA.
Second defendant withdrew all the balance in her account with CBA.
ANZ account was closed.
Term deposits 2 to 3 were closed.
Second box was closed.
Plaintiff and first defendant divorced.
District Court (Transferred) Suit No 600872 of 2000 filed.
Mdm Eu passed away.
District judge held that the first defendant did receive the sum from the plaintiff but she dismissed the plaintiff’s claim.
District judge ordered that each party should bear its own costs.
District judge issued lengthy judgment.
Judgment reserved.
High Court dismissed all six appeals but varied the judgment.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Money had and received
    • Outcome: The court found that in a claim for money had and received, there is no requirement at law to prove ownership, but the court directed that Hoo Sun or the administrators of the mother’s estate could come forward to claim the money back from the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Proof of ownership
      • Beneficial ownership

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Return of $1 million

9. Cause of Actions

  • Money had and received

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Teo Geok Fong v Lim Eng HockHigh CourtYes[1996] 3 SLR 431SingaporeCited to support the principle that a court can accept part of a witness's testimony and reject another part.
PP v Datuk Haji Harun bin Haji Idris (No 2)High CourtYes[1977] 1 MLJ 15MalaysiaCited to support the principle that a court can accept part of a witness's testimony and reject another part.
Omar Ali bin Mohd v Syed Jafaralsadeg bin Abdulkadir AlhadadHigh CourtNo[1995] 3 SLR 388SingaporeCited regarding the locus standi of a beneficiary of an estate to sue in their personal capacity.
MCST No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte LtdHigh CourtNo[2002] 2 SLR 1SingaporeCited regarding the issue of costs.
Popat v ShonchhatraCourt of AppealYes[1997] 1 WLR 1367United KingdomCited for the decision that individual partners had no title to any specific partnership property during the course of the partnership.
Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd v Lucky Red Investments LtdHigh CourtNo[2004] 4 SLR 559SingaporeCited regarding the principle of in pari delicto and illegal schemes.
Tinsley v MilliganCourt of AppealNo[1993] 3 All ER 65United KingdomCited regarding the principle of in pari delicto and illegal schemes.
Arumugam v Lim Boon NeoCourt of AppealNo[1987] SLR 147SingaporeCited for the principles when an appellate court can substitute its own views for those of the trial judge.
Peh Eng Leng v Pek Eng LeongCourt of AppealNo[1996] 2 SLR 305SingaporeCited for the principles when an appellate court can substitute its own views for those of the trial judge.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 1997 Rev Ed) O 59 r 3(2)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed) s 26(1)Singapore
Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed) s 33(1)Singapore
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 405Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 116(g)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Money had and received
  • Beneficial ownership
  • Hoo Sun
  • Partnership
  • Trust
  • Divorce proceedings
  • Safe deposit box
  • Bank draft
  • Acknowledgement of debt

15.2 Keywords

  • Money had and received
  • Restitution
  • Partnership
  • Trust
  • Singapore
  • High Court

16. Subjects

  • Restitution
  • Contract Law
  • Partnership Law
  • Trusts

17. Areas of Law

  • Restitution
  • Contract Law
  • Partnership Law