Koh Chong Chiah v Treasure Resort: Breach of Membership Terms in Sijori Resort Club
In Koh Chong Chiah and others v Treasure Resort Pte Ltd and another, the Singapore High Court addressed a representative action brought by seven named plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and 202 others against Treasure Resort Pte Ltd and Colony Members Service Club Pte Ltd, alleging breaches of membership terms in Sijori Resort Club. The court, presided over by Lai Siu Chiu J, allowed the appeal in part, discontinuing the suit for the 202 persons due to a lack of the requisite 'same interest' among the claimants, while allowing the action to continue for the named plaintiffs. The court found that the varying membership agreements and alleged breaches did not support a class action.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Representative action for breach of Sijori Resort Club membership terms. The High Court discontinued the suit for 202 plaintiffs due to lack of 'same interest'.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Koh Chong Chiah | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Koh Swee Yen, Paul Loy, Benjamin Fong |
| Soh Kah Wah @ Vincent Leow | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Koh Swee Yen, Paul Loy, Benjamin Fong |
| Ong Hong Poh Cecilia | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Koh Swee Yen, Paul Loy, Benjamin Fong |
| Yip Kum Thong | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Koh Swee Yen, Paul Loy, Benjamin Fong |
| Tsu Pei Yuke | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Koh Swee Yen, Paul Loy, Benjamin Fong |
| Yeo Choon Hock Christopher | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Koh Swee Yen, Paul Loy, Benjamin Fong |
| Rozario Roland Charles | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Koh Swee Yen, Paul Loy, Benjamin Fong |
| Treasure Resort Pte Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Adrian Tan, Jackson Eng, S Vanathi |
| Colony Members Service Club Pte Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Adrian Tan, Jackson Eng, S Vanathi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Koh Swee Yen | WongPartnership LLP |
| Paul Loy | WongPartnership LLP |
| Benjamin Fong | WongPartnership LLP |
| Adrian Tan | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Jackson Eng | Drew & Napier LLC |
| S Vanathi | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Seven named plaintiffs and 202 others sued Treasure Resort and Colony Members Service Club for breaches of Sijori Resort Club membership terms.
- Claimants alleged breaches of express and implied terms of their Membership Agreements with Sijori.
- The first defendant took over management of the Club from Sijori in 2006.
- The first defendant allegedly made representations to members regarding continued membership privileges.
- The second defendant offered new membership contracts with increased fees and altered terms.
- Claimants alleged the first defendant renounced its obligations under the Membership Agreements.
- The first defendant argued that the claimants did not have the requisite 'same interest' to maintain a class action.
5. Formal Citations
- Koh Chong Chiah and others v Treasure Resort Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 849 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 209 of 2011), [2012] SGHC 239
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sijori obtained an 81-year lease over land in Sentosa from the Sentosa Development Corporation. | |
| Claimants entered into agreements with Sijori to become members of the Club. | |
| The first defendant was incorporated in Singapore. | |
| Option to Purchase made between Sijori and the first defendant. | |
| The Club was allegedly sold by Sijori to the first defendant. | |
| The first defendant concluded a Membership Management Transfer Agreement with Sijori. | |
| The first defendant informed the members of the change of ownership. | |
| Sijori informed the claimants that it would hand over the Club to the first defendant. | |
| The first defendant represented to members that it was the new owner and manager of the Club. | |
| The first defendant represented to members that it was the new owner and manager of the Club. | |
| The first defendant represented that the transfer of Club membership from Sijori to the first defendant would be completed by this date. | |
| The first defendant issued to the claimants complimentary room vouchers for three nights’ stay at the Club. | |
| The second defendant was incorporated. | |
| The second defendant sent a letter to the claimants renouncing the first defendant’s obligations as owner and manager of the Club. | |
| Claimants ceased payment of monthly subscription fees. | |
| Suit No 849 of 2009 commenced. | |
| The first defendant applied to discontinue the suit. | |
| The court dismissed the first defendant’s application to discontinue the suit. | |
| The High Court allowed Registrar’s Appeal No 209 of 2011 and ordered the suit to be discontinued vis a vis the 202 persons. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court did not make a determination on the breach of contract claim itself, but discontinued the representative action for the 202 persons.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Repudiation of contract
- Failure to provide membership privileges
- Representative Action
- Outcome: The court held that the 202 persons did not have the requisite 'same interest' to maintain a representative action and discontinued the suit for those parties.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Same interest requirement
- Commonality of claims
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for not being accorded membership privileges
- Damages for not being accorded three nights’ complimentary stay
- Damages for being denied usage of the Club’s facilities
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Negligence
- Conspiracy to Injure
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Contract Disputes
11. Industries
- Hospitality
- Recreation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Duke of Bedford v Ellis & Others | House of Lords | Yes | [1901] AC 1 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the principle of common interest and common grievance in representative suits. |
| Western Canadian Shipping Centres Inc. v Dutton | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | (2001) SCC 46 | Canada | Cited regarding the conditions for allowing class actions, including common issues of law or fact. |
| Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 307 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a class action involving club memberships, but distinguished due to differing facts. |
| Markt & Co Limited v Knight Steamship Company Limited | UK Court of Appeal | Yes | [1910] 2 KB 1021 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the principle that shippers of goods cannot have the same interest in one cause or matter. |
| Naken v General Motors Canada Ltd | Supreme Court | Yes | 144 DLR (3d) 385 | Canada | Cited regarding the inappropriateness of class actions when claims are not sufficiently similar. |
| Carnie and Another v Esanda Finance Corporation Limited | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1995) 182 CLR 398 | Australia | Cited regarding the interpretation of rules related to representative actions. |
| Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club | High Court | Yes | [2002] SGHC 278 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a class action involving club memberships, but distinguished due to differing facts. |
| Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 307 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a class action involving club memberships, but distinguished due to differing facts. |
| Tan Chin Seng v Raffles Town Club | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 351 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a class action involving club memberships, but distinguished due to differing facts. |
| Shanklin Pier Ltd v Detel Products Ltd | King's Bench | Yes | [1951] 2 KB 854 | United Kingdom | Cited as the locus classicus for collateral contract. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 15 rule 12(1) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 18 rule 19 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 56 rule 3 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Membership Agreement
- Representative action
- Same interest
- Transfer Agreement
- Novation
- Membership privileges
- Subscription fees
- Complimentary stay
- Club facilities
- Repudiation
15.2 Keywords
- representative action
- class action
- membership
- breach of contract
- Sijori Resort Club
- same interest
- novation
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Class Actions
- Membership Disputes
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Membership Law
- Representative Actions