Tentat Singapore v Win Bo: Recovery of Payments & Counterclaim for Project Failure
In a suit before the High Court of Singapore on 23 September 2010, Tentat Singapore Pte Ltd sought to recover payments from Win Bo Pte Ltd for financial support provided for a construction project. Win Bo counterclaimed, alleging Tentat caused the project's failure. The court, presided over by Justice Kan Ting Chiu, ruled in favor of Tentat, awarding them $3,680,000 and dismissing Win Bo's counterclaim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tentat Singapore sued Win Bo to recover payments for a construction project. Win Bo counterclaimed for damages, alleging project failure caused by Tentat. The court ruled in favor of Tentat, dismissing Win Bo's counterclaim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tentat Singapore Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment in the sum of $3,680,000 | Won | Edwin Lee Peng Khoon, Sim Chee Siong, Chiam Xiu Michelle |
| Win Bo Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Counterclaim Dismissed | Lost | JB Jeyaretnam, Rajan s/o Sankaran Nair, Ramachandran Shiever Subramanium |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kan Ting Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Edwin Lee Peng Khoon | M/s Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Sim Chee Siong | M/s Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Chiam Xiu Michelle | M/s Rajah & Tann LLP |
| JB Jeyaretnam | M/s Rajan Nair & Partners |
| Rajan s/o Sankaran Nair | M/s Rajan Nair & Partners |
| Ramachandran Shiever Subramanium | M/s Grays LLC |
4. Facts
- Tentat provided financial support to Win Bo for a construction project.
- Win Bo had a lease from Jurong Town Corporation over property at 14 Jalan Besut Singapore.
- Win Bo was constructing a factory building on the property with a loan from Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation.
- The initial contractor stopped work and went into receivership.
- OCBC recalled the loan and obtained an order for possession of the property.
- Tentat agreed to provide financial support to revive the project.
- Another contractor, Tat Ho, was engaged but also failed to complete the building.
- OCBC took possession of the property and sold it.
- There is a balance of $1,447,680.21 held by stakeholders pending the determination of the proceedings.
- Win Bo issued two letters of award to Tat Ho, one for $5,720,500 and another for $3,000,000.
5. Formal Citations
- Tentat Singapore Pte Ltd v Win Bo Pte Ltd, Suit No 464 of 2007, [2010] SGHC 283
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Win Bo issued a letter of award to Tentat to complete the factory for $3m. | |
| The award to Tentat was cancelled. | |
| Win Bo issued a letter of award to Tat Ho for the same job at the price of $5,720,500. | |
| Win Bo issued a letter of award to Tat Ho for the same job at the price of $3m. | |
| OCBC obtained an order for the possession of the property. | |
| Win Bo wrote a letter to Tat Ho re-confirming their mutual understanding that the contract for the works does not follow the standard SIA contract. | |
| A Man-Year Entitlement application for the project was made. | |
| Tat Ho left the site without completing the building. | |
| OCBC took possession of the property. | |
| The property was sold. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that Win Bo was in default and Tentat was entitled to repayment.
- Category: Substantive
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that Win Bo's representation regarding possession of the property was not a misrepresentation at the time the agreement was made.
- Category: Substantive
- Mistake
- Outcome: The court found that Tentat's belief in Win Bo's ability to sell the property to a REIT was not a mistake, as the ability was only lost subsequently.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Recovery of Payments
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Misrepresentation
- Mistake
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Disputes
11. Industries
- Construction
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 27 r 4 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Financial Assistance
- Construction Project
- Letter of Award
- Temporary Occupation Permit
- Real Estate Investment Trust
- Possession of Property
- Stakeholders
- Payment Vouchers
15.2 Keywords
- Construction
- Contract
- Financial Assistance
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Contract Law
- Financial Assistance
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Construction Law
- Civil Procedure