Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club: Damages for Wrongful Suspension of Club Membership

In Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club, the High Court of Singapore assessed damages payable to Madam Kay Swee Pin for the invalid suspension of her club membership from 2006 to 2007. The court, presided over by Teo Guan Siew AR, awarded $32,000 for deprivation of membership rights and $40,000 for mental distress, but disallowed the claim for aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages. The primary legal issue was whether intangible harm, such as mental distress, is recoverable in a contractual setting. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiff, awarding a total of $72,000 in damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Damages of $72,000 awarded to the plaintiff for deprivation of membership rights and mental distress; claim for aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages disallowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court assessed damages for the wrongful suspension of Kay Swee Pin's club membership, addressing mental distress and punitive damages.

1.7 Decision Date

28 August 2008

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Kay Swee Pin	Plaintiff	Individual	Partial Judgment	Partial	S H Almenoar
Singapore Island Country Club	Defendant	Corporation	Partial Loss	Partial	Ramesh s/o Selvaraj

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Teo Guan Siew	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
S H Almenoar	R Ramason & Almenoar
Ramesh s/o Selvaraj	Allen & Gledhill

4. Facts

Mdm Kay was a member of the SICC.
Mdm Kay's membership was suspended for one year.
The Court of Appeal declared the suspension order invalid.
Mdm Kay sought damages for deprivation of rights, mental distress, and exemplary damages.
The SICC argued that Mdm Kay had not suffered any pecuniary loss.
Mdm Kay and her husband joined another country club in Phuket after the suspension.

5. Formal Citations

Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club, OS 2125/2006, NA 49/2008, [2008] SGHC 143

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1982-01-01	Chinese customary marriage between Mdm Kay and Mr. Ng in Johor
1992-01-01	Mdm Kay became a member of the SICC
2005-08-01	Mdm Kay decided to contest the elections for the Lady Captain
2005-08-24	Mdm Kay and Mr Ng registered their marriage in Las Vegas
2006-05-19	Mdm Kay's club membership was suspended
2007-05-18	End date of Mdm Kay's club membership suspension
2008-08-29	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the SICC had breached its contract with Mdm Kay by wrongfully suspending her membership.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Wrongful suspension of club membership
  - Breach of natural justice
Damages for Mental Distress
- Outcome: The court held that damages for mental distress were recoverable in this case under the Farley v Skinner exception.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Recoverability of damages for mental distress in contract
  - Application of Farley v Skinner exception
Exemplary Damages
- Outcome: The court disallowed the claim for exemplary damages, holding that they are generally not recoverable for breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether exemplary damages are recoverable for breach of contract

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for deprivation of rights and privileges
Damages for mental distress
Aggravated, exemplary, and punitive damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Recreation
Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR 802	Singapore	Sets out the detailed facts of the case and was the basis for the assessment of damages.
Livingstone v Rawyards Coal Co	House of Lords	Yes	(1880) 5 App. Cas. 25	England	Cited for the general principle that damages should put the injured party in the position they would have been in had the wrong not occurred.
Robinson v Harman	Court of Exchequer	Yes	(1848) 1 Ex. 850	England	Cited for the principle that contractual damages should place the claimant in the position they would have been in had the contract been performed.
The Mediana	House of Lords	Yes	[1900] AC 113	England	Cited regarding the difficulty of measuring pain and suffering in monetary terms.
Rodocanachi v Milburn	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	(1886) 18 QBD 67	England	Cited for the principle that rules on damages can only be approximately just.
Re Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc	Unknown	Yes	[1988] 1 MLJ 222	Singapore	Cited to show that no private remedies, particularly an award of damages, would have been available under Singapore law in an action for judicial review.
Chan Hiang Leng, Colin v Minister for Information and the Arts	Unknown	Yes	[1996] 1 SLR 609	Singapore	Cited to show that no private remedies, particularly an award of damages, would have been available under Singapore law in an action for judicial review.
Haron bin Mundir v Singapore Amateur Athletic Association	High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR 18	Singapore	Treated the case as one concerning a breach of contract as encapsulated in the rules of the association.
Farrel v Secretary of State	Unknown	Yes	(1980) 1 All ER 166	England	Cited for the importance of pleadings.
Esso Petroleum Co. Ltd v Southport Corporation	House of Lords	Yes	(1956) AC 218	England	Cited for the importance of pleadings.
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome	House of Lords	Yes	[1972] 1 All ER 830	England	Cited for the proposition that exemplary or punitive damages must also be specifically pleaded.
The Shravan	High Court	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 197	Singapore	Distinguishes between general and special damages.
Lee Kuan Yew v Vinocur	Unknown	Yes	[1995] 3 SLR 477	Singapore	States that aggravated damages are generally in the nature of such special damages which must accordingly be specifically pleaded with sufficient notice to the other party, unless they are the necessary and immediate consequence as in defamation cases.
Bonham-Carter v Hyde Park Hotel	Unknown	Yes	(1948) 64 TLR 177	England	Cited for the proposition that the plaintiff bears the burden of proving such loss.
Bonsor v Musicians’ Union	House of Lords	Yes	[1955] 3 All ER 518	England	Held that the expelled member was entitled to all remedies available to a breach of contract, including damages.
Robertson Quay Investments Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR 623	Singapore	The law does not demand that the plaintiff prove with complete certainty the exact amount of damage that he has suffered.
Biggin & Co Ld v Permanite, Ld	English High Court	Yes	[1951] 1 KB 422	England	Where precise evidence is obtainable, the court naturally expects to have it. Where it is not, the court must do the best it can.
Addis v Gramophone Co	House of Lords	Yes	[1909] AC 488	England	Damages could not be awarded to an employee for his hurt feelings in having been wrongfully dismissed, even if the dismissal had been carried out in a harsh and humiliating way.
Teo Siew Har v Lee Kuan Yew	Unknown	Yes	[1999] 4 SLR 560	Singapore	Damages for breach of contract were in the nature of compensation, not punishment. This did not include damages for his injured feelings even if he had been dismissed in a harsh and humiliating manner.
Arul Chandran v Gartshore	Unknown	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR 446	Singapore	Endorsed Bingham LJ’s general statement of principle that a contract-breaker is not in general liable for any distress, frustration, anxiety, displeasure, vexation, tension or aggravation which his breach of contract may cause to the innocent party.
Watts v Morrow	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1991] 1 WLR 1421	England	A contract-breaker is not in general liable for any distress, frustration, anxiety, displeasure, vexation, tension or aggravation which his breach of contract may cause to the innocent party.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co	Unknown	Yes	[2001] 2 WLR 72	England	Contract-breaking is treated as an incident of commercial life which players in the game are expected to meet with mental fortitude.
Jarvis v Swan Tours	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1973] QB 233	England	In a proper case damages for mental distress can be recovered in contract, such as where it is a contract for a holiday or any other contract to provide entertainment and enjoyment.
Jackson v Horizon Holidays	Unknown	Yes	[1975] 1 WLR 1468	England	Followed and applied to similar facts in other cases involving spoiled holidays.
Jackson v Chrysler Acceptances	Unknown	Yes	[1978] RTR 474	England	Followed and applied to similar facts in other cases involving spoiled holidays.
Farley v Skinner	House of Lords	Yes	[2001] 3 WLR 899	England	An award of damages was justified in respect of his disappointment at the loss of a pleasurable amenity and his distress in having to cope with the excessive aircraft noise.
Florence Bailes v Dr Ng Jit Leong	Unknown	Yes	[1985] 1 MLJ 374	Malaysia	The court awarded her damages in the sum of RM10,000 for the embarrassment, distress and humiliation which she suffered as a consequence of the wrongful suspension.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co	Unknown	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 1	England	Lord Cooke commented that he would “take leave to doubt the permanence of Addis in English law”, after noting that damages were awarded for mental distress for breaches of employment contracts in Canada and in New Zealand.
Johnson v Unisys Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[2003] 1 AC 518	England	Lord Hoffmann said that to follow the Canadian approach would involving overcoming the obstacle of Addis, a task that he was prepared to perform if called upon to do so.
Rookes v Barnard	House of Lords	Yes	[1964] AC 1129	England	Clarified this area of the law and severely curtailed the scope of exemplary damages, regarding it as an anomaly in the law of damages which has a solely compensatory purpose.
Lee Kuan Yew v Jeyaretnam JB	Unknown	Yes	[1990] SLR 688	Singapore	Endorsed this general rule that damages may only be compensatory, with the only exception being where the defendant, either with knowledge of the tort or recklessly, decides to publish because he may gain more than he would lose in material terms.
CHS CPO Gmbh (in bankruptcy) v Vikas Goel	Unknown	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR 202	Singapore	The rather limited circumstances under which exemplary damages will be granted under English (and, presumably, Singapore) law appears to be in a state of transition, even flux.
Hadley v Baxendale	Court of Exchequer	Yes	(1854) 9 Exch 341	England	Lord Scott also addressed the issue of contractual damages for mental distress from the perspective of the remoteness principles.

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

Club membership
Wrongful suspension
Damages
Mental distress
Exemplary damages
Natural justice
Farley v Skinner exception

15.2 Keywords

club membership
wrongful suspension
damages
mental distress
Singapore Island Country Club
Kay Swee Pin

16. Subjects

Contract Law
Damages
Membership Law

17. Areas of Law

Contract Law
Damages
Club Law
Civil Procedure