New Health International, Inc v Tan Hoo Kim: Dispute over Payment for Health Supplements

New Health International, Inc, an American company, sued Tan Hoo Kim, the sole proprietor of Viva Top Marketing and New Health Nutrition Enterprise, in the High Court of Singapore, for US$332,333.05, representing the price of health supplements supplied in 2001 and 2002. Tan Hoo Kim argued she was merely a transhipment agent for New Health's distributors in Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, and Taiwan. The court, presided over by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, dismissed New Health International's claim, finding that they failed to prove Tan Hoo Kim was contractually liable for the products. The defendant's counterclaim for interest was also dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs. The defendant's counterclaim is also dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

New Health International sued Tan Hoo Kim for US$332,333.05 for unpaid health supplements. The court dismissed the claim, finding Tan Hoo Kim acted as a transhipment agent, not a distributor.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
New Health International, IncPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
Tan Hoo KimDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Michelle Angelique ArmandHin Tat Augustine & Partners
Elaine SewHin Tat Augustine & Partners
Jemy OngHin Tat Augustine & Partners
Lam Wai SingLam WS & Co
Ng Hon WaiLam WS & Co

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff, New Health International, Inc, is an American company that manufactures and sells health supplements.
  2. The defendant, Tan Hoo Kim, is the sole proprietor of Viva Top Marketing and New Health Nutrition Enterprise in Singapore.
  3. The plaintiff sued the defendant for US$332,333.05 for health supplements supplied in 2001 and 2002.
  4. The defendant claimed she was a transhipment agent for the plaintiff's distributors in Malaysia, Brunei, Indonesia, and Taiwan.
  5. The defendant received health supplements from the plaintiff and then distributed them to other New Health entities in the region.
  6. The plaintiff's customers made payments directly to the plaintiff for the products.
  7. The plaintiff did not produce purchase orders from the defendant.

5. Formal Citations

  1. New Health International, Inc v Tan Hoo Kim, Suit 848/2005, Suit 848/2005
  2. New Health International, Inc v Tan Hoo Kim, , [2007] SGHC 62

6. Timeline

DateEvent
New Health International, Inc incorporated.
Viva Top Marketing received products from New Health International, Inc.
New Health Nutraceutical Pte Ltd incorporated in Singapore.
New Health Nutrition Enterprise registered.
Viva Top Marketing made a US$10,000 telegraphic transfer to the plaintiff's bank account.
New Health Nutraceutical Pte Ltd paid US$10,000 to the plaintiff's bank account.
New Health International made a payment of US$20,000 to the defendant's personal bank account.
New Health International made a payment of US$10,000 to the defendant's personal bank account.
Hin Tat Augustine & Partners sent a letter of demand to the Defendant.
Plaintiff issued proceedings for payment of unpaid invoices totalling US$332,333.05.
Plaintiff paid US$100,000 to the defendant under protest.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no contractual liability on the part of the defendant.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Liability as Distributor
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant was not acting as a distributor but as a transhipment agent.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Debt Recovery

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Health and Wellness

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ong & Co Pte Ltd v Quah Kay TeeN/AYes[1996] 2 SLR 553SingaporeCited regarding the shifting of the evidential burden in a trial.
Stoney v Eastbourne Rural District CouncilN/AYes[1927] 1 Ch 367N/ACited to explain the shift of the onus of proof.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Health Supplements
  • Distributor
  • Transhipment Agent
  • Invoices
  • Purchase Order
  • Multi-Level Marketing
  • Viva Top Marketing
  • New Health Nutrition Enterprise

15.2 Keywords

  • health supplements
  • distributor
  • transhipment
  • contract
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract70
Contract Law70
Transhipment Agency60
Commercial Disputes50
Agency Law30
Company Law20

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Agency
  • International Trade