Otech Pakistan v Clough Engineering: Breach of Oral Contract & Inducement Claim

Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd sued Clough Engineering Ltd and William Harold Clough in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of an oral agreement and inducement of breach of contract, respectively. The court, presided over by Justice Tan Lee Meng, dismissed Otech's claims, finding no evidence of a concluded oral agreement and no proof that William Harold Clough induced any breach. The judgment was reserved on 30 March 2006.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Otech's claims against Clough Engineering Ltd and Mr William Harold Clough are dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment reserved.

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Otech Pakistan sued Clough Engineering for breach of an alleged oral agreement and William Clough for inducing the breach. The court dismissed Otech's claims.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Otech Pakistan Pvt LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
Clough Engineering LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon
William Harold CloughDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kenneth Tan SCHaq & Selvam
Wendy TanHaq & Selvam
Kelvin PoonRajah & Tann
Sim Kwan KiatRajah & Tann
Steven Chong SCRajah & Tann

4. Facts

  1. Otech claimed an oral agreement was finalized on 1 November 1999.
  2. Clough Engineering Ltd denied that any oral agreement was finalized.
  3. Otech claimed Clough Engineering Ltd owed them 20% of any settlement sum.
  4. Clough Engineering Ltd terminated its contractual relationship with Otech in February 2002.
  5. Clough Engineering Ltd settled its dispute with OGDCL in July 2004 for US$7,515,000.
  6. Otech's president, Mr. Latif, made a counter-offer to Clough Engineering Ltd's draft proposal on 9 November 1999.
  7. Otech admitted it offered no assistance to Clough Engineering Ltd after the termination of their contractual relationship.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd and Another, Suit 815/2004, [2006] SGHC 55

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Oil and Gas Development Company Limited awarded Clough Engineering Ltd a contract for the upgrading and extension of the Dhodak gas plant.
Oil and Gas Development Company Limited awarded Clough Engineering Ltd a contract for the upgrading and extension of the Dakhni gas plant.
Oil and Gas Development Company Limited suspended the Dakhni project.
Clough Engineering Ltd obtained an injunction in the Pakistani courts to restrain Oil and Gas Development Company Limited from encashing the bank guarantees.
Clough Engineering Ltd entered into an agreement with Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd to assist in resolving disputes with Oil and Gas Development Company Limited.
Clough Engineering Ltd and Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd had discussions on a more generous remuneration package.
Clough Engineering Ltd terminated its contractual relationship with Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd.
Clough Engineering Ltd settled its dispute with Oil and Gas Development Company Limited for US$7,515,000.
Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd instituted proceedings against Clough Engineering Ltd and Mr Clough.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that no oral agreement was concluded on 1 November 1999.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Existence of oral agreement
      • Terms of oral agreement
      • Enforceability of agreement
  2. Inducement of Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the claim for inducing breach of contract was not proven.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Knowledge of contract
      • Intent to interfere

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Inducement of Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Oil and Gas

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Loy Chin Associates Pte Ltd v Autohouse Trading Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1991] SLR 755SingaporeCited for the principle that a party is bound by its pleadings and the case is confined to the issues raised on the pleadings.
Blay v Pollard and MorrisN/AYes[1930] 1 KB 628N/ACited for the principle that cases must be decided on the issues on the record.
Hyde v WrenchN/AYes(1840) 3 Beav 334; 49 ER 132N/ACited for the principle that a counter-offer terminates the original offer.
Lau Liat Meng v Disciplinary CommitteeN/AYes[1965–1968] SLR 8SingaporeCited for the principle that an agreement calling for payment by percentage of the amount recovered on the claim or in any action is undeniably one stipulating for payment only in the event of success.
Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co LtdCourt of AppealYes[2000] 3 SLR 405SingaporeCited for the requirements to succeed in a claim for inducing a breach of contract.

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

  • Oral agreement
  • Champerty
  • Inducement
  • Settlement sum
  • Termination
  • Pleadings

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of contract
  • inducement
  • oral agreement
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Inducement of Breach of Contract80
Breach of Contract75
Contract Law65
Torts50
Pleadings40
Champerty35
Civil Procedure30
Evidence25

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law