Orix Capital Ltd v Symrise Holding Pte Ltd: Leasing Dispute & Fraud Allegations

Orix Capital Ltd, a leasing company, sued Symrise Holding Pte Ltd and Symrise Pte Ltd for breaching a lease agreement for photocopiers. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Tan Lee Meng, dismissed Orix's claim, finding that the lease was not genuine and that Orix was aware of the fraudulent activities of Docusearch Pte Ltd, the supplier of the photocopiers. The court found that Orix's own staff and management were aware of the issues with the lease and that Orix was the author of its own misfortune.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Orix's claim against Symrise and Symrise Pte Ltd is dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Orix Capital sued Symrise for breach of a lease agreement. The court dismissed the claim, finding the lease was not genuine and Orix was aware of the fraud.

1.7 Decision Date

27 May 2008

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Orix Capital Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Felicia Ng of Piah Tan & Partners Yeo Piah Chuan of Piah Tan & Partners
Symrise Holding Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Ronnie Tan of Central Chambers Law Corporation Rajendran Kumaresan of Central Chambers Law Corporation Koh Sim Teck of Central Chambers Law Corporation
Symrise Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Ronnie Tan of Central Chambers Law Corporation Rajendran Kumaresan of Central Chambers Law Corporation Koh Sim Teck of Central Chambers Law Corporation
Docusearch Pte Ltd	Third Party	Corporation	Claim Not Proceeded With	Dismissed
Jai Singh	Third Party	Individual	No Order on Costs	Neutral	Ravinran Kumaran of Ravi Lim & Partners

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Tan Lee Meng	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Felicia Ng	Piah Tan & Partners
Yeo Piah Chuan	Piah Tan & Partners
Ronnie Tan	Central Chambers Law Corporation
Rajendran Kumaresan	Central Chambers Law Corporation
Koh Sim Teck	Central Chambers Law Corporation
Ravinran Kumaran	Ravi Lim & Partners

4. Facts

Orix, a leasing company, sued Symrise for breaching a lease agreement for 9 OKI colour photocopiers.
Docusearch, a supplier of office equipment, sold the photocopiers to Orix but did not deliver them to Symrise.
Docusearch paid all the monthly leasing fees to Orix until it faced financial problems.
Symrise denied being a party to the lease agreement and claimed it was a victim of fraud.
Jai Singh, formerly Symrise's employee, signed the lease on Symrise's behalf but was not an employee at the time.
Orix paid Docusearch a highly inflated price for the photocopiers.
Orix's staff knew that the photocopiers had not been delivered to Symrise and that Docusearch was paying the leasing fees.

5. Formal Citations

Orix Capital Ltd v Symrise Holding Pte Ltd and Others, Suit 64/2006, [2008] SGHC 79

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2003-03-31	Jai Singh transferred to Symrise Pte Ltd
2003-09-01	Lease in September 2003 for 4 black and white photocopiers
2003-10-01	Lease in October 2003 for 3 black and white photocopiers
2004-02-01	Lease in February 2004 for 4 black and white photocopiers
2004-04-01	Lease in April 2004 for 6 black and white photocopiers
2005-03-01	Alleged agreement date of March 2005 lease
2005-08-25	Alleged representation by Symrise that they had taken delivery of the copiers
2005-08-31	Orix sales co-ordinator telephoned Mr Singh
2005-09-01	Docusearch letter offering to pay leasing fees for one year
2005-10-28	Orix's final reminder to Symrise for overdue payments
2005-12-01	Danny Lee left Docusearch
2006-01-01	Jai Singh's employment with SPL was terminated
2008-05-28	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that there was no valid contract due to the fraudulent circumstances and non-delivery of goods.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Non-payment of leasing fees
  - Validity of lease agreement
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that Orix did not rely on any representation by Mr. Singh and that Orix knew or ought to have known about the fraudulent nature of the transactions.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reliance on false representation
  - Knowledge of falsity
Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that Symrise was not estopped from asserting that the photocopiers had not been delivered.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Estoppel by representation
  - Detrimental reliance

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Finance
Office Equipment

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Peterson Farms Inc v C & M Farming Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2004] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 603	N/A	Cited for the principle that the creation of a corporate structure is designed to create separate legal entities.
Swee Bee Trading Co Pte Ltd v Lanho Corporation (Pte) Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1982-1983] SLR 161	Singapore	Cited and distinguished regarding the issue of estoppel in relation to delivery receipts.
Hong Leong Leasing Sdn Bhd v Tan Kim Cheong	N/A	Yes	[1994] 1 MLJ 177	Malaysia	Cited regarding the issue of estoppel arising from the signing of a delivery receipt.

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

Lease agreement
Photocopiers
Leasing fees
Delivery receipt
Backdating
Double financing
Roll over
Standby lease
Fictitious leases

15.2 Keywords

Leasing
Photocopiers
Fraud
Breach of Contract
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Fraud and Deceit	80
Contract Law	75
Leasing Agreements	70
Misrepresentation	65
Commercial Law	60
Company Law	40
Banking and Finance	30

16. Subjects

Leasing
Commercial Law
Fraud