Yenty Lily v ACES System: Breach of Contract, Wrongful Detention & Damages Assessment

In Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services) v ACES System Development Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the assessment of damages incurred by Yenty Lily due to ACES System Development's breach of contract and tortious actions. The court allowed the appeal, setting aside the Assistant Registrar's figures and replacing them with new awards, including damages for wrongful detention of platforms and costs arising from the detention and inspection of the platforms.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding damages for breach of contract and wrongful detention of platforms. Judgment for Plaintiff, awarding damages for wrongful detention.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
ACES System Development Pte LtdDefendant, RespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services)Plaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJustice of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Valerie AngMimi Oh & Associates
N SreenivasanMimi Oh & Associates
Mimi OhMimi Oh & Associates
Lee Mun HooiLee Mun Hooi & Co
Lee Shi HuiLee Mun Hooi & Co

4. Facts

  1. ACES System Development Pte Ltd appointed as main contractor for improvement works.
  2. ACES System Development Pte Ltd subcontracted works to Yenty Lily (Access International Services) for mobile platforms.
  3. Subcontract stipulated lump sum payment of $850,000 to Yenty Lily.
  4. ACES System Development Pte Ltd to provide financial assistance via letter of credit.
  5. Yenty Lily to repay purchase price in 12 monthly installments deducted from progress payments.
  6. ACES System Development Pte Ltd failed to pay progress claims in full, leading to outstanding balance.
  7. Yenty Lily considered non-payment a repudiation of the subcontract and ceased work.
  8. ACES System Development Pte Ltd terminated the subcontract.
  9. Yenty Lily claimed outstanding amount, loss of profits, return of platforms, and damages for wrongful detention.
  10. Platforms were returned to Yenty Lily on 23 October 2010 after court order.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services) v ACES System Development Pte Ltd, Suit No 679 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 247/2011), [2012] SGHC 208

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Subcontract entered between Yenty Lily and ACES System Development.
Yenty Lily informed ACES System Development of inability to carry out further works due to outstanding payment.
ACES System Development stated Yenty Lily was not released from obligations.
Yenty Lily stated she would hold ACES System Development responsible for loss or damage to platforms and would remove them from the site.
ACES System Development stated Yenty Lily had no right to remove platforms without consent.
ACES System Development terminated the subcontract.
Proceedings commenced by Yenty Lily.
Platforms moved to WYN2000 Transport & Container Services Pte Ltd warehouse.
Action came on for hearing before Lee Seiu Kin J.
Evidence and submissions completed before Lee Seiu Kin J.
Platforms returned to Yenty Lily.
Mr. Wong filed an affidavit.
Mr. Wong filed an earlier affidavit on 18 December 2009.
Registrar's Appeal No 247 of 2011 filed by the plaintiff.
Registrar’s Appeal No 248 of 2011 filed by the defendant.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court upheld the trial judge's decision that the defendant had wrongfully repudiated the subcontract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Wrongful repudiation of subcontract
      • Failure to make progress payments
  2. Wrongful Detention
    • Outcome: The court found the defendant liable for damages for wrongful detention of the platforms, applying the user principle.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Damages for wrongful detention
      • Application of the user principle
    • Related Cases:
      • [1952] QB 246
  3. Assessment of Damages
    • Outcome: The court adjusted the Assistant Registrar's assessment of damages, increasing the award for damage and loss of inventory and awarding damages for wrongful detention.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Costs of completing the project
      • Damage to and loss of inventory
      • Interest on damages

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Outstanding Payment
  2. Loss of Profits
  3. Return of Platforms
  4. Damages for Wrongful Detention

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Wrongful Detention

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Construction Disputes

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Strand Electric & Engineering Co Ltd v Brisford Entertainments LdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1952] QB 246England and WalesCited as the leading case on the 'user principle' in determining damages for wrongful detention of property.
Livingstone v Rawyards Coal CoN/AYes(1880) 5 App Cas 25N/ACited for the general rule that the measure of damages is the amount of money which would put the injured party in the same position had he not suffered the wrong.
Chartered Electronics Industries Pte Ltd v Comtech IT Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[1998] SGCA 43SingaporeCited for the general rule that the measure of damages is the amount of money which would put the injured party in the same position had he not suffered the wrong.
The MedianaN/AYes[1900] A.C. 113N/ACited to illustrate the principle that a wrongdoer has no right to consider what use the owner is going to make of their property when assessing damages.
Andrew Grubb, The Law of RestitutionN/AYesAndrew Grubb, The Law of Restitution (LexisNexis Butterworths, 2002)N/ACited for the principle that the user principle protects property rights in themselves, focusing on the owner's right to exclude others from using the property.
Siew Kong Engineering Works (sued as a firm) v Lian Yit Engineering Sdn Bhd and anorSingapore Court of AppealYes[1993] 2 SLR 505SingaporeCited for the principle that a wrongdoer who has made use of goods for his own purposes must pay a reasonable hire for them, even if the owner has suffered no loss.
Gary Chan, The Law of Torts in SingaporeN/ANoGary Chan, The Law of Torts in Singapore (LexisNexis, 2012)N/ACited to note that the Court of Appeal seemed to have regarded the award of user damages as restitutionary in nature.
Watson Laidlaw & Co Ltd v Pott Cassels & WilliamsonN/AYes(1914) 31 RPC 104N/ACited for the concept of 'abstraction or invasion of property' as a form of loss in compensatory analysis.
Mitchell McInnes, “Gain, Loss and the User Principle”N/AYes(2006) 14 R.L.R. 76N/ACited for the analysis that the user principle ought to apply regardless of what the defendant did with the detained property.
Hillesden Securities Ltd v Ryjack Ltd and anorN/AYes[1983] 1 WLR 959N/ACited for acknowledging the compensatory nature of user damages, focusing on the loss of use of the property.
Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes LtdN/AYes[1974] 1 WLR 798N/ACited for the principle of awarding damages equivalent to the sum which the plaintiff might reasonably have demanded for a relaxation of a covenant.
Attorney-General v BlakeN/AYes[2001] 1 A.C. 268N/ACited for the explanation that the award of damages in Wrotham Park was compensatory in nature, representing a compulsory purchase of the plaintiff's right of refusal.
Jaggard v SawyerN/AYes[1995] 1 WLR 269N/ACited for the compensatory analysis of damages, focusing on the profits earned by the defendant as related to the sum they would have been willing to pay for release from the covenant.
World Wide Fund for Nature and anor v World Wrestling Federation Entertainment IncN/AYes[2008] 1 WLR 445N/ACited for adopting a similar analysis to Jaggard v Sawyer.
Kuwait Airways Corporation v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5)N/AYes[2002] 2 AC 883N/ACited for the observations made by Lord Nicholls in relation to the user principle, adopting the language of both compensation and restitution.
Gaba Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd v Turner Corporation Ltd and anorSupreme Court of New South WalesNo[1991] 32 NSWLR 175AustraliaCited as the only decision where a pure restitutionary approach has been adopted, with the availability of user damages depending upon actual use by the defendant.
Inverugie Investments Ltd v HackkettN/AYes[1995] 1 WLR 713N/ACited for illustrating the mixed nature of the user principle, combining elements of both compensation and restitution.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, Rev Ed 1999), s 12(1)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Mobile Platforms
  • Subcontract
  • Lump Sum
  • Progress Payments
  • Repudiation
  • Wrongful Detention
  • User Principle
  • Damages Assessment
  • Letter of Credit
  • Inventory
  • Repatriation Cost

15.2 Keywords

  • Breach of Contract
  • Wrongful Detention
  • Damages
  • Construction
  • Mobile Platforms
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract90
Damages80
Contract Law80
Wrongful Detention75
Torts70
Commercial Disputes60
Property Damage50
Construction Industry40

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Construction Law
  • Damages