Yip Holdings v Asia Link Marine: Breach of Contract & Crane Damage Dispute

Yip Holdings Pte Ltd sued Asia Link Marine Industries Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on June 5, 2009, for breach of contract regarding damage to Yip Holdings' crane while stored at Asia Link Marine's premises. The court, presided over by Justice Lai Siu Chiu, awarded interlocutory judgment and costs to Yip Holdings on its claim and dismissed Asia Link Marine's counterclaim with costs, finding that Asia Link Marine breached the oral agreement by unilaterally moving the crane without Yip Holdings' consent and engaging an unqualified contractor, resulting in damage to the crane.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Yip Holdings sued Asia Link Marine for breach of contract over damage to a crane stored at Asia Link's premises. The court ruled in favor of Yip Holdings.

1.7 Decision Date

4 June 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Yip Holdings Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Lau Teik Soon of Lau & Gur Gurcharanjit Singh s/o Dewan Singh of Lau & Gur
Asia Link Marine Industries Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Counterclaim Dismissed	Lost	Tan Chye Long Mervyn of Mervyn Tan & Co Jeanette Lee Tsui Ling of Mervyn Tan & Co

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lau Teik Soon	Lau & Gur
Gurcharanjit Singh s/o Dewan Singh	Lau & Gur
Tan Chye Long Mervyn	Mervyn Tan & Co
Jeanette Lee Tsui Ling	Mervyn Tan & Co

4. Facts

Plaintiff sued defendant for breach of contract related to damage to a crane stored at defendant’s premises.
Plaintiff and defendant had an oral agreement for storage of plaintiff's equipment at defendant's yard.
Defendant had the right to relocate plaintiff’s equipment within the yard.
Defendant unilaterally moved the crane without plaintiff’s consent.
Defendant engaged Haruki, an unqualified contractor, to dismantle and disassemble the crane.
The crane was damaged during and/or after the move from the yard to Haruki’s yard.
Plaintiff disputed the accuracy of the defendant’s statement of account regarding storage charges.

5. Formal Citations

Yip Holdings Pte Ltd v Asia Link Marine Industries Pte Ltd, Suit 399/2008, [2009] SGHC 136

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1990-10-01	Yip Holdings Pte Ltd incorporated
1995-01-01	Asia Link Marine Industries Pte Ltd incorporated
1997-01-01	John Holland Construction (Philippines) Inc. purchased two cranes
1999-01-01	Plaintiff and defendant had an existing arrangement for storage of equipment
2000-08-01	John Holland Construction (Philippines) Inc. ceased business
2000-11-01	Plaintiff obtained judgment from the Philippines court
2002-06-01	Plaintiff sent its tugboat and barge to Tiaong City to load and bring back the crane
2005-09-01	Sale and purchase transaction of the cranes completed
2005-12-05	Invoice prepared for the sale of Manitowoc
2005-12-15	Defendant handed a cash cheque for $90,000 to Steven Chua
2006-01-01	Rental payable by the plaintiff to the defendant reduced to $945 per month
2006-01-01	Defendant obtained contracts from Keppel Corporation for steel fabrication works
2006-03-01	Yip approached Lim for the outstanding payment of $98,000 on the Manitowoc
2006-12-26	Lim requested the plaintiff to move the crane out of the yard by 2 January 2007
2007-02-13	Roland requested a meeting with Yip to resolve the dispute on the outstanding sum
2007-02-15	Yip managed to get a company called Triple Gem International Pte Ltd to conduct a joint inspection of the crane
2007-02-16	Lim confronted Yip and Triple Gem’s representative and instructed the defendant’s guards not to grant access to Triple Gem to remove the crane
2007-02-17	Yip wrote a letter to the defendant requesting the defendant’s full cooperation to gain access to the yard
2007-04-01	Lim instructed Haruki to dismantle and remove the crane from the yard
2007-04-18	Crane moved to Haruki’s yard
2007-05-03	Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to Haruki and to the defendant to demand that the crane be handed over to the plaintiff
2007-05-07	Lim wrote to the plaintiff to say that the crane had been moved by the defendant to Haruki’s yard on 18 April 2007
2007-05-28	Plaintiff’s solicitors wrote to the defendant to say the latter had breached its obligations to safeguard the crane
2008-03-15	Yip hired a private investigator to check the state of the crane at Haruki’s yard
2008-04-10	Plaintiff’s solicitors demanded compensation for the loss and damage caused by the defendant
2008-06-11	Plaintiff filed its writ of summons
2009-06-05	Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant breached the oral agreement by unilaterally moving the crane without the plaintiff's consent and engaging an unqualified contractor.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to perform contractual obligations
  - Unilateral relocation of equipment without consent

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Shipping
Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
No cited cases

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

Crane
Storage charges
Manitowoc
Haruki
Relocation
Dismantle
Qualified contractor
Yard
Equipment
Oral agreement

15.2 Keywords

Breach of contract
Crane damage
Storage agreement
Negligence
Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Breach of Contract	90
Contract Law	85
Damage to Equipment	75
Equipment Storage	60
Crane Operation	40
Construction Law	30
Torts	20
Shipping Law	15

16. Subjects

Contract Dispute
Equipment Damage
Storage Agreement