Ang Kin Chiew v Ang Boon Chye: Partnership Dispute over Food Court Businesses

In Ang Kin Chiew v Ang Boon Chye, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute among family members regarding the plaintiff's role in several food court businesses. Ang Kin Chiew sued Ang Boon Chye and others, alleging he was a partner in Ang Keong, Palm View, Palm Valley, and All Family, seeking accounts and dissolution. The defendants, including Ang's father and siblings, claimed Ang was merely a nominee. Lai Siu Chiu J. dismissed Ang Kin Chiew's claims, finding him to be a nominee of his father and awarded judgment to the eleventh defendant on his counterclaim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claims dismissed with costs; judgment for the eleventh defendant on counterclaim.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A dispute arose between Ang Kin Chiew and his family over his role in their food court businesses. The court dismissed Ang Kin Chiew's claims, finding him to be a nominee.

1.7 Decision Date

6 April 2006

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ang Kin Chiew	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	MS Rajendran, K Chandra Sekaran, Arul Suppiah
Ang Boon Chye	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Richard Sam
Wong Kee Yock	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Richard Sam
Ang Tin Yong	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Andrew Tan Tiong Gee, Anna Png
Ang King Keong	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Sng Kheng Huat
Ang Tin Chun	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Andrew Tan Tiong Gee, Anna Png
Ang Leng Kuan	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Richard Sam
Tiong Choon Hieng Steven	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Richard Sam
Lim May Xia Margie	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Richard Sam
Kong Kian	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Tan Bar Tien, Winston Kwek
Ang Choon Siang	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Richard Sam
Teng Lak Hoon	Defendant, Respondent	Individual	Judgment for Defendant, Judgment for Defendant on Counterclaim	Won, Won	Tan Bar Tien, Winston Kwek

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
MS Rajendran	Rajen & Co
K Chandra Sekaran	Rajen & Co
Arul Suppiah	Rajen & Co
Richard Sam	Sam & Wijaya
Sng Kheng Huat	Sng & Co
Andrew Tan Tiong Gee	Andrew Tan Tiong Gee & Co
Anna Png	Andrew Tan Tiong Gee & Co
Tan Bar Tien	BT Tan & Co
Winston Kwek	BT Tan & Co

4. Facts

The plaintiff's name was registered as a partner in several food court businesses.
The eleventh defendant claimed the plaintiff was merely a nominee.
The plaintiff made no capital contribution for his shares in the partnerships.
The plaintiff did not involve himself in the running of the food courts.
The plaintiff did not make any monetary contribution towards the purchase of any of the premises.
The plaintiff was never asked to bear liability for any of the partnerships in which he held an interest.
The plaintiff encashed his AXA investment policy and surrendered his life policies with AXA and Prudential obtaining and retaining the sums of $14,678.88, $55,459 and $3,376.87 respectively in the process.

5. Formal Citations

Ang Kin Chiew v Ang Boon Chye (trading as All Family Food Court and others), Suit 320/2005, [2006] SGHC 59

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1964-01-01	Ang Hin Coffee Shop started by the eleventh defendant.
1983-01-01	Hong Seng Eating House set up as a partnership.
1984-01-01	Ang Hin Coffee Shop closed.
1985-08-31	Ang Keong Eating House registered in the names of the fourth defendant and his wife.
1986-01-01	Hong Seng Eating House ceased business.
1989-12-01	Plaintiff worked at Ang Keong as a cashier.
1990-07-01	Plaintiff stopped working at Ang Keong.
1990-08-01	Plaintiff worked at Isetan departmental store.
1990-08-01	Lay Kim replaced by the eleventh defendant in the partnership of Ang Keong.
1991-02-01	Plaintiff stopped working at Isetan.
1991-04-01	Plaintiff returned to Ang Keong to work as a cashier.
1991-07-01	Plaintiff stopped working at Ang Keong.
1991-09-01	Plaintiff worked at Isetan departmental store.
1991-11-14	Palm View Food Court registered as a partnership.
1992-03-01	Plaintiff stopped working at Isetan.
1992-04-01	Plaintiff returned to work in Ang Keong.
1994-02-25	Plaintiff and the fifth defendant became partners in Ang Keong.
1994-04-04	Ang Keong purchased the Tampines premises.
1994-06-01	Plaintiff transferred his 8.335% share in Palm View to the ninth defendant.
1994-11-01	Ang Keong's moneys were used to purchase a condominium in Kuala Lumpur.
1994-11-01	The eleventh defendant removed the plaintiff and fourth defendant from the partnership of Palm View.
1995-01-01	The Wing Fong flat was purchased in the name of the fourth defendant.
1995-12-01	Ang Keong purchased Regal Court in the name of the fourth defendant and his wife.
1996-05-01	Loyang Food Court registered as a partnership.
1996-06-01	Palm Valley's place of business is at Block 111, Woodlands Street 13, #01-74, Singapore 730111 (“Woodlands premises”) which is also a HDB shop house purchased for $4m in June 1996.
1996-10-15	Fair City Food Court registered as a partnership.
1996-12-19	All Family Food Court registered.
1996-11-28	The Meeting Place Food Court registered as a partnership.
1997-01-17	Palm Valley Food Court registered as a partnership.
1997-08-01	Two units in a condominium located at S1/21/2 Suasana Sentral, Kuala Lumpur (“Suasana Sentral”) were purchased.
1997-12-31	Loyang ceased operations.
1998-01-01	A condominium unit at Block M2, Mewah Ria, Taman Bukit Mewah, Johor Baru (“Mewah View”) was purchased.
1998-06-18	Fair View Food Court registered as a partnership.
2000-01-01	Plaintiff stopped working at Ang Keong.
2002-11-29	Fair Link Food Centre registered as a partnership.
2003-09-23	The third, fourth and fifth defendants left the partnership on 23 September 2003
2003-09-26	The first defendant left the partnership on 26 September 2003.
2006-04-07	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Partnership
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was not a partner but a nominee of his father.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Shares in partnership
  - Partners inter se

8. Remedies Sought

Order that the defendants furnish accounts of all the food courts
Dissolution of Ang Keong
Dissolution of Palm View
Dissolution of Palm Valley
Dissolution of All Family
Audit of the partnerships’ accounts

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Partnership Agreement
Seeking accounts of partnerships

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Food and Beverage

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Chua Ka Seng v Boonchai Sompolpong	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR 482	Singapore	Cited for the test of determining whether a partnership exists by considering all circumstances and drawing an inference from the whole.
Davis v Davis	High Court of Justice	Yes	[1894] 1 Ch 393	England and Wales	Cited for the test of determining whether a partnership exists by considering all circumstances and drawing an inference from the whole.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Partnership
Nominee
Food court
Partners inter se
Beneficial owner
Joint tenancy
Tenants-in-common

15.2 Keywords

Partnership dispute
Food court business
Nominee
Singapore High Court

16. Subjects

Partnership
Commercial Dispute

17. Areas of Law

Partnership Law