Nagase Singapore v Ching Kai Huat: Conspiracy & Overcharging Dispute
In Nagase Singapore Pte Ltd v Ching Kai Huat and Others, the High Court of Singapore addressed claims by Nagase Singapore Pte Ltd against Ching Kai Huat, David's Logistics Pte Ltd, Yip Kian Koon, Clement, and Mary Ting Chi Fong for conspiracy and overcharging. The court found that David's Logistics and Ching Kai Huat conspired to injure Nagase by unlawful means, specifically by deliberately overcharging them. Additionally, the court found Yip Kian Koon, Clement, and Mary Ting Chi Fong liable for negligence in failing to prevent the overcharging. The court awarded damages to Nagase, holding David's Logistics and Ching Kai Huat jointly liable, and also holding Yip Kian Koon, Clement, and Mary Ting Chi Fong liable for a portion of the damages.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff in part; Conspiracy found between some defendants; Negligence found against other defendants.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Nagase Singapore sues Ching Kai Huat for conspiracy and overcharging. The court finds conspiracy between D Logistics and DC, and negligence by CY and MT.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nagase Singapore Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff in part | Partial | |
| Ching Kai Huat | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | |
| David's Logistics Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | |
| Yip Kian Koon, Clement | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | |
| Mary Ting Chi Fong | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- D Logistics overcharged Nagase Singapore for storage.
- DC was aware of the overcharging.
- CY and MT failed to set up a proper system to verify D Logistics' invoices.
- Nagase Singapore claimed $913,541.68 as the amount overcharged.
- D Logistics admitted to overcharging $417,075.35.
- Nagase Singapore used its computer system (NFS) to track tonnage and packages stored.
- D Logistics used a different tonnage volume and number of boxes than the plaintiff did.
5. Formal Citations
- Nagase Singapore Pte Ltd v Ching Kai Huat and Others, Suit 751/2003, [2007] SGHC 169
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| D Logistics made part reimbursement payment of $100,000 to Nagase. | |
| Last cheque issued to D Logistics. | |
| Nagase Singapore commenced proceedings against the defendants. | |
| Breaches of duty added to the claim. | |
| Final amendment of the statement of claim filed. | |
| First judgment delivered. | |
| Second judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Conspiracy to Injure
- Outcome: The court found that D Logistics and DC conspired to injure the plaintiff by deliberately overcharging them.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Agreement between conspirators
- Unlawful means
- Intent to injure
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 1 SLR 385
- [1991] 1 IR 142
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that CY and MT were in breach of their duty to the plaintiff by failing to prevent overcharging.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to set up proper verification system
- Failure to supervise system
- Quantum of Damages
- Outcome: The court determined the amount of damages payable by each defendant based on the evidence presented.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Proof of loss
- Calculation of overcharges
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Conspiracy
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Logistics
- Warehousing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nagase Singapore Pte Ltd v Ching Kai Huat & ors | High Court | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR 265 | Singapore | The current judgment is a follow-up to this decision. |
| Chong Hon Kuan Ivan v Levy Maurice & Ors (No. 2) | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited regarding conspiracy claims against directors; distinguished on the basis that the tortious act was done by illegal means in the present case. |
| Said v Butt | N/A | Yes | [1920] 3 KB 497 | England and Wales | Applied the principle that a servant acting bona fide within the scope of his duty is not liable for breach of contract between his employer and a third party; distinguished in this case. |
| O’Brien v Dawson | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1942) 66 CLR 18 | Australia | Cited for the conceptual objection to treating a company and its directors as separate individuals for the purpose of conspiracy. |
| Chew Kong Huat v Ricwil (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 385 | Singapore | Cited as implicitly rejecting the conceptual objection to conspiracy between a company and its director. |
| Wah Tat Bank Ltd v Chan | N/A | Yes | [1975] AC 507 | N/A | Cited as authority for the proposition that a director who procured the commission of a wrong through a company would be liable for that wrong. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners v Wee Chong Jin | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR 374 | Singapore | Cited as authority for the proposition that a director who procured the commission of a wrong through a company would be liable for that wrong. |
| TV Media Pte Ltd v De Cruz Andrea Heidi | N/A | Yes | [2004] 3 SLR 534 | Singapore | Cited as authority for the proposition that a director who procured the commission of a wrong through a company would be liable for that wrong. |
| C Evans & Sons Ltd v Spritebrand Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1985] 1 WLR 317 | England and Wales | Cited as authority for the proposition that a director who procured the commission of a wrong through a company would be liable for that wrong. |
| Mancetter Developments Ltd v Garmanson Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1986] 1 QB 1212 | England and Wales | Cited as authority for the proposition that a director who procured the commission of a wrong through a company would be liable for that wrong. |
| Belmont Finance Corporation v Williams Furniture Ltd (No. 2) | N/A | Yes | [1980] 1 All ER 393 | England and Wales | Distinguished on the basis that the conspiracy concerned involved additional parties apart from only the director and his company or, secondly, the director had a plan to use, and had used, his own company as an accessory and vehicle to commit fraud on the plaintiff. |
| Taylor v Smyth | Irish Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 1 IR 142 | Ireland | Expressly held that an agreement causing injury to a person by unlawful means is an actionable conspiracy notwithstanding that the parties to the agreement might be a person and a limited liability company under his control, or two or more companies under the control of a single person. |
| Saloman v Saloman & Co | N/A | Yes | [1897] AC 22 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a company legally incorporated does not cease to be an independent legal entity, separate and distinct from the individual members of the company, simply because it is wholly controlled by one individual. |
| Belmont Finance (No 1) v Williams Furniture | N/A | Yes | [1979] Ch 250 | England and Wales | The basis of that case was that the separate legal entity of the company may, in law, conspire with those directors who, in effect, control it. |
| Lennard's Carrying Co Ltd v Asiatic Petroleum Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1915] AC 705 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a corporation is an abstraction and its active and directing will must consequently be sought in the person of somebody who is really the directing mind and will of the corporation. |
| Reg v McDonnell | N/A | Yes | [1966] 1 QB 233 | England and Wales | Cited for the reasoning that a company and a director cannot be convicted of conspiracy when the only human being who is said to have broken the law or intended to do so is the one director. |
| Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Co Ltd v Veitch | N/A | Yes | [1942] AC 435 | N/A | Cited regarding the elements of conspiracy. |
| Reg v Churchill (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1967] 2 AC 224 | N/A | Cited regarding the elements of conspiracy. |
| Oram v Hutt | N/A | Yes | [1914] 1 Ch 98 | N/A | Cited regarding the elements of conspiracy. |
| Re Elgindata Ltd (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1993] 1 All ER 232 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles governing the issue of costs. |
| Tullio v Maoro | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the principles governing the issue of costs. |
| Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [2001] 4 SLR 603 | Singapore | Cited regarding the circumstances of the case including the matters that led to the litigation. |
| Wyno Marine Pte Ltd v Lim Teck Cheng | High Court | Yes | [1998] SGHC 340 | Singapore | Cited to the effect the principles governing the award of costs do not include any general principle that a party is entitled to costs on a pro-rata basis. |
| MCST No. 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2002] 2 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the reasoning that as the respondent relied on the same facts for proving mistake of law and for proving colore officii, and as the appellant relied on the same defences to both claims, it was unlikely that the respondent's pleading colore officii caused a significant increase in the cost of the proceedings. |
| Mees Pierson NV v Bay Pacific (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 4 SLR 393 | Singapore | Cited where the High Court ordered the plaintiffs in the action to pay costs to the third defendant there on an indemnity basis because the plaintiffs had been over zealous in making very serious allegations of fraud and forgery against the third defendant. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Overcharging
- Conspiracy
- Breach of duty
- Truncated weeks
- Tonnage volume
- NFS
- Invoices
- Direct deliveries
- Alter ego
- Corporate veil
15.2 Keywords
- conspiracy
- overcharging
- negligence
- breach of duty
- logistics
- warehousing
- singapore
- high court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Conspiracy by Unlawful Means | 90 |
| Damages Assessment | 70 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Commercial Disputes | 50 |
| Company Law | 40 |
| Estoppel | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Tort
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Conspiracy
- Commercial Dispute