JK Pte Ltd v Lonpac Insurance Bhd: Marine Insurance Claims & Consultant Fees Dispute

JK Pte Ltd sued Lonpac Insurance Bhd in the High Court of Singapore, before Lai Siu Chiu J, for failing to pay for services rendered under a letter of appointment dated 1 August 2008. JK Pte Ltd was appointed to investigate marine insurance claims made against Lonpac Insurance Bhd following Cyclone Nargis. The court dismissed JK Pte Ltd's claim, finding that JK Pte Ltd was only entitled to be paid after Lonpac Insurance Bhd reached a settlement with the consignees, and that JK Pte Ltd was not entitled to a bonus payment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs to the defendant.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

JK Pte Ltd sued Lonpac Insurance Bhd for unpaid consultant fees related to marine insurance claims. The court dismissed JK Pte Ltd's claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lonpac Insurance BhdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon
JK Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nigel BogaarsBogaars & Din
Savliwala Fakhruddin HuseniBogaars & Din
Axel ChanAttorneys Inc. LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff was appointed as a consultant to investigate marine insurance claims.
  2. The defendant issued nine marine policies to Idea Giant Ltd and other Singapore companies.
  3. The goods were shipped to Yangon on three vessels.
  4. Cyclone Nargis struck the Irrawaddy River and other regions of Myanmar.
  5. The defendant agreed to pay the consignees US$770,000 on the claims.
  6. The plaintiff filed a suit claiming the balance of $340,110.71 of the invoice amount.

5. Formal Citations

  1. JK Pte Ltd v Lonpac Insurance Bhd, Suit No 55 of 2009, [2011] SGHC 72

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendant issued nine marine policies to Idea Giant Ltd and other Singapore companies.
Vessels arrived at Yangon.
Cyclone Nargis struck Myanmar.
Port terminal at Yangon was closed until this date.
Goods were cleared from the port.
Goods in plastic bags were burnt.
Meeting arranged by Tan to introduce Goh to Teo.
Second meeting arranged by Tan with Goh.
Letter of appointment issued to JK Pte Ltd.
Letter of authorisation issued to Goh.
Goh left for Myanmar.
Goh returned to Singapore.
Email from Tan to the defendant.
Email from Goh to Tan.
Tan wrote to the defendant forwarding documents he had received from Goh.
Plaintiff’s tax invoice issued to the defendant.
Goh sent an email to Teo.
Goh wrote to the defendant referring to the claims.
Goh had a meeting at the defendant’s office.
Goh described the defendant’s counter-offer of $7,500 as “peanuts”.
Tee disagreed with Goh’s views.
Goh reiterated his opinion that the defendant could reject the claims immediately.
Tan advised the defendant to reject the claims.
Another meeting took place at the defendant’s office.
Goh recorded that his request for an advance payment of $150,000 had been refused by the defendant.
Goh met with Webster’s representatives.
Webster prepared draft letters to the consignees rejecting their claims.
Webster wrote to the consignee Malikha to reject its claims.
Plaintiff filed this suit.
A firm of Singapore solicitors wrote a letter of demand on behalf of Malikha to the defendant.
Ang & Partners gave their views in a letter to the defendant.
Ong contacted Zaw Win to negotiate.
Defendant agreed to pay the consignees US$770,000 on the claims.
Settlement sum was paid.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to its claim of 10% commission but not its claim of 5% bonus commission.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of contract terms
      • Entitlement to commission
      • Entitlement to bonus
  2. Interpretation of Letter of Appointment
    • Outcome: The court interpreted the letter of appointment to mean that the plaintiff was entitled to be paid upon legal completion of the claims, which occurred when the defendant reached agreement with the consignees on the settlement sum.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Meaning of 'legal completion'
      • Conditions for bonus payment

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Insurance Claims

11. Industries

  • Insurance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corp BhdN/AYes[1989] 1 All ER 785N/ACited regarding the contra proferentum rule.
Levison and others v Farin and othersN/AYes[1978] 2 All ER 1149N/ACited regarding the contra proferentum rule.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
State Law and Order Restoration Council National Food and Drug LawMyanmar

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Marine insurance
  • Cyclone Nargis
  • Letter of appointment
  • Quantum saved
  • Legal completion
  • Settlement sum
  • Commission
  • Bonus
  • Consignees
  • Claims adjuster

15.2 Keywords

  • marine insurance
  • consultant fees
  • breach of contract
  • Singapore
  • Lonpac Insurance
  • JK Pte Ltd

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Marine Insurance Claims80
Insurance75
Contract Law65
Shipping Law50
Commercial Law40

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Insurance Claim
  • Consultancy Agreement