Ma Ong Kee v Cham Poh Meng: F&B Business Loans & Placement Investments Dispute
In a consolidated action before the Singapore High Court on 30 July 2013, Mr. Ma Ong Kee sued Mr. Cham Poh Meng in Suit 478 to recover $398,000 advanced for an F&B business. Mr. Cham counter-sued Mr. Ma in Suit 654 for $1,121,655, claiming it was a loan for share purchases. Mr. Ma counterclaimed for an account of Mr. Cham’s trading in placements. The court found substantially in favor of Mr. Ma, entering judgment for him in S478, dismissing Mr. Cham’s claim in S654, and dismissing Mr. Ma’s counterclaim in S654.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Mr. Ma in S478; Mr. Cham’s claim and Mr. Ma’s counterclaim in S654 dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving claims and counterclaims over loans for an F&B business and investments in IPOs, focusing on fund origins and agency.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ma Ong Kee | Plaintiff, Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff, Claim Dismissed | Won, Lost | Subramaniam Pillai, Jasmin Yek, Melanie Tien |
| Cham Poh Meng | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Nicholas Jeyaraj s/o Narayanan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Subramaniam Pillai | Colin Ng & Partners LLP |
| Jasmin Yek | Colin Ng & Partners LLP |
| Melanie Tien | Colin Ng & Partners LLP |
| Nicholas Jeyaraj s/o Narayanan | Nicholas & Tan Partnership LLP |
4. Facts
- Mr. Ma lent Mr. Cham money for his F&B business between June 2004 and March 2006.
- Mr. Cham opened a margin trading account at Maybank in October 2004.
- Mr. Cham was employed by Mr. Ma in several companies, including InvestCapital and OneEquity.
- Mr. Ma claimed that he provided the initial capital for Fullerton Ventures Pte Ltd.
- Mr. Cham claimed that the $1,121,655 Enviro-Hub Payment was a loan to Mr. Ma.
- Mr. Ma had $3.5m on 7-day deposit at Maybank and $1.2m in a current account with Standard Chartered Bank in October 2006.
- Mr. Cham left a spreadsheet detailing transactions in the Margin Account at Mr. Ma's office.
5. Formal Citations
- Ma Ong Kee v Cham Poh Meng, Suit No 478 of 2010 consolidated with Suit No 654 of 2010, [2013] SGHC 144
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mr. Ma withdrew $60,000 cash from his Maybank account. | |
| Mr. Cham opened the Margin Account with Maybank. | |
| Mr. Ma withdrew $80,000 cash from his Maybank account. | |
| Mr. Cham deposited $80,000 cash into his DBS account. | |
| Mr. Cham deposited cheque for $115,560 into Margin Account. | |
| Mr. Ma withdrew $150,000 in cash from his Maybank account. | |
| Mr. Cham deposited $150,000 cash into the Margin Account. | |
| Mr. Ma withdrew $60,000 cash from his Maybank account. | |
| Mr. Ma withdrew $140,000 cash from his Maybank account. | |
| Mr. Cham deposited $95,000 cash into the Margin Account. | |
| Fullerton Ventures Pte Ltd was incorporated. | |
| Mr. Ma withdrew $100,000 cash from his Standard Chartered bank account. | |
| Mr. Cham deposited $122,000 cash into the Margin Account. | |
| Mr. Cham deposited $6,500 cash into the Margin Account. | |
| Mr. Cham deposited $10,000 cash into the Margin Account. | |
| Mr. Ma withdrew $50,000 cash from his Maybank account. | |
| Mr. Ma withdrew $30,000 cash from his Maybank account. | |
| Mr. Ma withdrew $50,000 cash from his Maybank account. | |
| Mr. Ma withdrew $70,000 cash from his Maybank account. | |
| Mr. Ma withdrew $300,000 cash from his Maybank account. | |
| Mr. Cham deposited $80,000 cash into his DBS account. | |
| Mr. Cham deposited $150,000 cash into his DBS account. | |
| Mr. Cham drew cheque for $265,000 on his DBS account. | |
| Mr. Cham deposited his cheque for $265,000 plus a cheque for $266,772 from Mr. Quek Yiang Hang into the Margin Account. | |
| Mr. Ma appointed Mr. Cham to be an “Investment Director” of OneEquity SG Pte Ltd. | |
| Mr Cham allegedly lent Mr Ma $1,121,655 to purchase shares in Enviro-Hub Holdings Ltd. | |
| Mr Cham allegedly discharged debt to Mr Ma by paying $384,000.50 to Kay Hian. | |
| Mr. Cham's employment with InvestCapital and OneEquity ended. | |
| Mr. Cham sold the remaining shares in the Margin Account. | |
| Mr. Cham withdrew virtually all the remaining cash from the Margin Account. | |
| Mr. Ma commenced S478 against Mr. Cham. | |
| Mr. Cham commenced S654 against Mr. Ma. | |
| Both suits were consolidated by an order of court. | |
| Judgment Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Cham was indebted to Mr. Ma for the outstanding loan amount.
- Category: Substantive
- Agency
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Cham acted as Mr. Ma's agent in managing the Margin Account.
- Category: Substantive
- Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The court held that Mr. Cham bore the burden of proving that he had discharged his debt to Mr. Ma.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 3 SLR(R) 212
- (1956) 99 CLR 560
- Limitation
- Outcome: The court acknowledged that a portion of the loan was time-barred under the Limitation Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1983] QB 398
- [2011] SGHC 249
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Account of Profits
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Debt Recovery
- Account
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Banking Litigation
- Financial Services Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
- Food and Beverage
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ronex Properties Ltd v John Laing Construction Ltd & Ors | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1983] QB 398 | England and Wales | Approved in Singapore case for the principle that Limitation Acts bar the remedy and not the right, and only when pleaded. |
| Hong Alvin v Chia Quee Khee | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 249 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Limitation Acts bar the remedy and not the right, and only when pleaded. |
| Wee Yue Chew v Su Sh-Hsyu | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 212 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in an action to recover a debt, if the defendant admits the debt but alleges it has been discharged, the burden of proving discharge falls on the defendant. |
| Young v Queensland Trustees Limited | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1956) 99 CLR 560 | Australia | Cited for the principle that the defendant must allege and prove payment by way of discharge as a defence to an action for indebtedness. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Limitation Act (Cap 163 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Initial Public Offerings
- Placements
- Margin Account
- F&B Business
- Settlement Head
- Investment Director
- Fresh Funds
- Ouhua Payment
- Enviro-Hub Payment
- Spreadsheet
15.2 Keywords
- loan
- margin account
- placement
- agency
- fiduciary duty
- investment
- Singapore
- High Court
- contract
- debt
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Financial Dispute
- Agency Law
- Banking
- Investments
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Agency Law
- Equity
- Banking Law
- Financial Investments