Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction v Yeow Chern Lean: Limitation Act & Claim for Moneys Had and Received

In Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Yeow Chern Lean, the High Court of Singapore addressed the applicability of the Limitation Act to a claim for moneys had and received. Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction ("CHHK") appealed against the decision to strike out part of its claim against Yeow Chern Lean. The claim concerned two cheques that were allegedly converted by Yeow. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the claim was time-barred under the Limitation Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court held that a claim for moneys had and received arising from conversion is time-barred under the Limitation Act. The appeal was dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte LtdPlaintiff, AppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Yeow Chern LeanDefendant, RespondentIndividualClaim DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ling Daw Hoong PhilipWong Tan & Molly Lim LLC
Kronenburg Edmund JeromeBraddell Brothers LLP
Lye HuixianBraddell Brothers LLP

4. Facts

  1. Neo issued two cheques to Lim, who handed them to Yeow.
  2. Yeow encashed the First Cheque on 22 November 2000 and the Second Cheque on 4 April 2002.
  3. Yeow used the proceeds from the Two Cheques towards the purchase and construction of a house.
  4. Neo previously sued Yeow for conversion, moneys had and received, and a declaration of trust.
  5. The Court of Appeal held that Neo had no locus standi to bring the claim.
  6. CHHK brought the current action against Yeow for moneys had and received and a declaration of trust.
  7. The assistant registrar held that the claim for moneys had and received was time-barred.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Yeow Chern Lean, Originating Summons No 804 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 378 of 2009), [2010] SGHC 83
  2. Neo Kok Eng v Yeow Chern Lean, , [2008] SGHC 151
  3. Yeow Chern Lean v Neo Kok Eng, , [2009] 3 SLR(R) 1131
  4. MCST No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd, , [2001] 2 SLR(R) 669
  5. United Australia, Limited v Barclays Bank, Limited, , [1941] 1 AC 1
  6. Chesworth v Farrar, , [1967] 1 QB 407
  7. Beaman v A.R.T.S. Ltd, , [1948] 2 All ER 89
  8. Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Sandwell Borough Council, , [1994] All ER 890
  9. Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit, , [2000] 3 SLR(R) 304
  10. Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit, , [2001] 1 SLR(R) 856
  11. Kleinwort Benson v Glasgow City Council, , [1997] 3 WLR 923
  12. MCST Plan No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd, , [2002] 1 SLR(R) 418
  13. Bryant v Herbert, , (1878) 3 CPD 389
  14. Jarvis v Moy, Davies, Smith, Vandervell & Co, , [1936] 1 KB 399
  15. Jackson v Mayfair Window Cleaning Co Ltd, , [1952] 1 All ER 215
  16. In re Diplock, , [1948] Ch 465
  17. Hong Guet Eng v Wu Wai Hong, , [2006] 2 SLR(R) 458

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First Cheque encashed
Second Cheque encashed
Suit No 136 of 2007 filed
Suit No 137 of 2007 filed
Judgment issued in Neo Kok Eng v Yeow Chern Lean [2008] SGHC 151
Assistant registrar ordered part of CHHK’s claim be struck out in Summons No 4717 of 2009
Appeal dismissed
Reasons for dismissing appeal given

7. Legal Issues

  1. Applicability of Limitation Act
    • Outcome: The court held that the claim for moneys had and received was founded on the tort of conversion and was therefore time-barred under s 6(1)(a) of the Limitation Act.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Time bar for claim of moneys had and received
      • Whether claim is founded on tort or contract

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Moneys Had and Received
  2. Declaration of Trust

9. Cause of Actions

  • Moneys Had and Received

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
MCST No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 669SingaporeCited for the principle that a claim for money had and received is not a claim in tort or contract.
Yeow Chern Lean v Neo Kok EngCourt of AppealYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 1131SingaporeCited for the principle that a claim for moneys had and received is contingent on proving the claim in conversion.
United Australia v Barclays Bank LtdHouse of LordsYes[1941] 1 AC 1England and WalesCited to explain that 'waiver of tort' is an election to take a gain-based rather than loss-based award for the tort.
Chesworth v FarrarQueen's BenchYes[1967] 1 QB 407England and WalesCited by the plaintiff to argue that the Act did not apply to its claim because it was neither founded in tort nor in contract.
Bryant v HerbertCourt of Common PleasYes(1878) 3 CPD 389England and WalesCited for establishing that the foundation of an action consists solely in those facts which are necessary to be alleged and proved in order to maintain it.
Jarvis v Moy, Davies, Smith, Vandervell & CoKing's BenchYes[1936] 1 KB 399England and WalesCited for establishing that an action was founded in tort, as opposed to contract, when there was a breach of duty independent of the defendant’s contractual obligations.
Jackson v Mayfair Window Cleaning Co LtdEngland and WalesYes[1952] 1 All ER 215England and WalesCited for establishing that an action was founded in tort, as opposed to contract, when there was a breach of duty independent of the defendant’s contractual obligations.
In re DiplockCourt of AppealYes[1948] Ch 465England and WalesCited for the principle that the contractual limitation period ought to apply since the claim was one of quasi-contract.
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Sandwell Borough CouncilEngland and WalesYes[1994] All ER 890England and WalesConsidered the question whether there was a limitation period for a bank’s claim for money had and received to recover payments made under an interest rate swap agreement which was later found to be void.
Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho ChitHigh CourtYes[2000] 3 SLR(R) 304SingaporeMoneys were paid out under an oral contract for the purchase of a property. However, the seller was later found not to have an interest in the property at all, and the buyers sued for moneys had and received arising and total failure of consideration.
Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho ChitCourt of AppealYes[2001] 1 SLR(R) 856SingaporeMoneys were paid out under an oral contract for the purchase of a property. However, the seller was later found not to have an interest in the property at all, and the buyers sued for moneys had and received arising and total failure of consideration.
Kleinwort Benson v Glasgow City CouncilHouse of LordsYes[1997] 3 WLR 923United KingdomInvolving the same series of interest rate swap agreements as in Sandwell in which the question was whether a claim in restitution was a “matter relating to a contract” for the purpose of determining if the English or Scottish courts possessed jurisdiction over the action.
MCST Plan No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 418SingaporeA perusal of the Limitation Act showed that a claim for unjust enrichment which was neither grounded in contract nor tort, and in which equitable relief was not sought, did not fall within the scope of the Act.
Hong Guet Eng v Wu Wai HongCourt of AppealYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 458SingaporeOur own Act was based on the Limitation Act (UK) 1939

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 6(1)(a)Singapore
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) s 7(2)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Limitation Act
  • Moneys had and received
  • Conversion
  • Time-barred
  • Waiver of tort
  • Restitution
  • Cheques
  • Proceeds
  • Cause of action
  • Tort

15.2 Keywords

  • Limitation Act
  • Restitution
  • Conversion
  • Moneys had and received
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Money had and received90
Limitation80
Unjust Enrichment75
Torts60
Civil Procedure50
Contract Law40
Litigation40
Contracts30
Breach of Contract30
Evidence30
Estoppel25

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Restitution
  • Limitation of Actions