United States Trading Co Pte Ltd v Ting Boon Aun: Partnership Liability for Partner's Fraud
In United States Trading Co Pte Ltd v Ting Boon Aun and Ting Boon Kiat, the High Court of Singapore addressed the liability of a partnership for the fraudulent actions of one partner. United States Trading Co. Pte Ltd. sued Ting Boon Aun and Ting Boon Kiat, partners in Philips COC Singapore, after Ting Boon Aun absconded with a US$360,000 loan obtained under false pretenses. The court, led by Justice Judith Prakash, found Ting Boon Kiat liable for US$199,874.48 under the Partnership Act, as the firm received the money in the course of its business, but allowed him to defend the remaining sum of US$160,125.52.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Partnership dispute where Ting Boon Aun absconded with loan. Court held other partner liable under Partnership Act for firm's business.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| United States Trading Co Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff in part | Partial | |
| Ting Boon Aun | Defendant | Individual | Judgment in default of appearance | Default | |
| Ting Boon Kiat | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal allowed in part | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Melvin Lum | Rajah & Tann |
| Lee Mun Hooi | Lee Mun Hooi & Co |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff loaned US$360,000 to Philips COC Singapore, believing it was a subsidiary of Philips Electronics.
- Jason Ting, a partner in Philips COC Singapore and employee of Philips Electronics, requested the loan.
- The loan was to be repaid by repricing an existing contract between the plaintiff and Philips Electronics.
- The cheque was paid into the firm’s account, and Jason Ting later withdrew the money and absconded.
- TBK claimed he was a dormant partner and unaware of Jason Ting's dealings.
- The firm was registered as a general wholesale trader.
5. Formal Citations
- United States Trading Co Pte Ltd v Ting Boon Aun and Another, Suit 387/2007, RA 331/2007, [2008] SGHC 15
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Jason Ting asked the plaintiff for a loan of US$360,000. | |
| Philips COC Singapore was formally registered as a partnership at ACRA. | |
| Jason Ting sent a letter to the plaintiff accepting the offer to lend US$360,000. | |
| Jason Ting sent an e-mail to the plaintiff’s managing director, Mr Ross, telling him that the payee in respect of the loan should be “Philips COC Singapore”. | |
| Cheque for US$360,000 was credited into the firm’s account. | |
| Philips COC Singapore was de-registered. | |
| Action commenced. | |
| Plaintiff obtained judgment in default of appearance against Jason Ting. | |
| Plaintiff amended the statement of claim. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Liability of partners for acts of partner
- Outcome: The court held that the other partners are liable to make good the loss of money received in the course of firm's business under s 11(b) Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed).
- Category: Substantive
- Summary judgment
- Outcome: The court considered whether the defendant was bound by the four corners of defence.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of contract
- Fraud
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Trading
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lin Securities (Pte) Ltd v Noone | N/A | Yes | [1989] 1 MLJ 321 | Malaysia | Cited regarding whether a defendant is bound by the four corners of his pleadings at the trial of the action or at the O 14 proceedings. |
| Pembinaan V-Jaya Sdn. Bhd. v Binawisma Development Sdn. Bhd. | N/A | Yes | [1987] 2 C.L.J. 446 | N/A | Cited for the principle that where the defence amounts to nothing more than a bare denial of the claim, the court may be particularly cautious about defences suddenly raised by the affidavit. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 11(b) Partnership Act (Cap 391, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 12 of the Partnership Act (Cap 391, Rev Ed 1994) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Partnership
- Dormant partner
- Summary judgment
- Course of business
- Misapplication of funds
15.2 Keywords
- Partnership liability
- Fraudulent partner
- Summary judgment
- Singapore High Court
- Partnership Act
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Partnership
- Agency
- Fraud
- Civil Procedure