Poh Lian Development v Hok Mee Property: Partnership Dispute, Breach of Fiduciary Duty, Corporate Veil Piercing

In Poh Lian Development Pte Ltd v Hok Mee Property Pte Ltd and others, the High Court of Singapore addressed a complex partnership dispute involving multiple defendants and counterclaims. The court found Hok Mee Property Pte Ltd, Hok Chung and Kek liable for various overpayments and breaches of fiduciary duty. The court also addressed the distribution of partnership assets, prioritizing certain debts and adjusting previous orders regarding refunds and liabilities. The court ordered Hok Mee and Kek to pay Poh Lian Development's costs, with Hok Chung jointly and severally liable for one-third of the costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff, Poh Lian Development, against Hok Mee Property and others.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Addendum to Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court judgment in Poh Lian Development v Hok Mee Property concerning a partnership dispute, breach of fiduciary duty, and piercing the corporate veil.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Poh Lian Development Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationSuccessful in claims against Hok Mee, Kek, and Hok ChungWon
Hok Mee Property Pte LtdDefendantCorporationLiable for overpayments and breach of fiduciary dutyLost
Hok ChungDefendantCorporationLiable for overpaymentsLost
KekDefendantIndividualPersonally liable due to piercing of the corporate veilLost
TempleDefendantOtherLiable to refund advanceLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tricia TayRajah & Tann LLP
Tan Lee ChengRajah & Tann LLP
Kelvin TeoMPillay
Christopher ChongMPillay
Simon YuenLegal Clinic LLC

4. Facts

  1. Hok Chung was overpaid for PC Rate items.
  2. Hok Chung was overpaid due to over-certification by AGA.
  3. Loans were advanced to PLD directors out of the proceeds of sale of the niches.
  4. The Temple was entitled to a commission from the Partnership.
  5. PLD, Hok Mee, and Hok Chung advanced loans to the Partnership.
  6. The Temple received an advance for marketing expenses.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Poh Lian Development Pte Ltd v Hok Mee Property Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 365 of 2005, [2010] SGHC 247

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Suit filed (Suit No 365 of 2005)
Written judgment delivered
Addendum to Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court found Hok Mee and Kek liable for breach of fiduciary duty.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Piercing the Corporate Veil
    • Outcome: The court ordered that the corporate veil be lifted against Kek in respect of Hok Mee and Hok Chung.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Overpayment of Construction Costs
    • Outcome: The court found that Hok Chung had been overpaid and ordered refunds to the Partnership.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Refund of Overpayments
  2. Damages
  3. Account of Profits

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Overpayment
  • Recovery of Debt

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Disputes

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Partnership
  • Corporate Veil
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Overpayment
  • PC Rate Items
  • Over-certification
  • Commission
  • Loans
  • Joint Venture

15.2 Keywords

  • partnership
  • construction
  • corporate veil
  • fiduciary duty
  • overpayment

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Lifting corporate veil80
Fiduciary Duties70
Contract Law60
Partnership Dispute50
Company Law50
Costs40
Estoppel30
Liquidation30
Bankruptcy30
Trust Law30

16. Subjects

  • Partnership Dispute
  • Construction Law
  • Corporate Law