Teo Bee Tiong v Ong Teck Ghee: Summary Judgment Appeal on Settlement Deed

Teo Bee Tiong appealed to the High Court of Singapore against the decision of the Assistant Registrar to dismiss his application for summary judgment against Ong Teck Ghee, an advocate and solicitor, regarding a settlement deed dated 10 January 2013. The settlement deed was intended to resolve disputes arising from a prior investment agreement. Andrew Ang J allowed the appeal, granting judgment in favor of Teo Bee Tiong, finding Ong Teck Ghee's submissions untenable and in breach of Section 94 of the Evidence Act. The claim was based on the terms of the settlement deed.

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 for summary judgment on a settlement deed. The court allowed the appeal, finding the defendant's arguments untenable and in breach of the Evidence Act.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Teo Bee TiongAppellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Ong Teck Ghee (practising under the name and style of Ong & Lau)Respondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Gan Theng ChongLee & Lee
Jovian TanLee & Lee
Ong Boon KiatOng & Lau

4. Facts

  1. Teo Bee Tiong and Ong Teck Ghee entered into a settlement agreement on 10 January 2013 to resolve disputes from a prior investment agreement.
  2. The settlement agreement stipulated that Ong Teck Ghee would pay Teo Bee Tiong S$900,000 if a Singapore Order was issued by 28 February 2013.
  3. If the Singapore Order was not issued by 28 February 2013, Ong Teck Ghee was to pay Teo Bee Tiong S$485,000 by 1 March 2013.
  4. The Singapore Order was not issued by 28 February 2013.
  5. Ong Teck Ghee failed to pay Teo Bee Tiong the sum of S$485,000 by 1 March 2013.
  6. Teo Bee Tiong commenced an action on 2 April 2013 to enforce his rights under the settlement agreement.
  7. The settlement agreement contained a clause stating that time was of the essence and there would be no further extension of time for payments.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Teo Bee Tiong v Ong Teck Ghee (practising under the name and style of Ong & Lau), Suit No 261 of 2013 (Registrar's Appeal No 215 of 2013), [2013] SGHC 211

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Consultancy agreement signed between Ong Teck Ghee and Bavarian Nordic A/S
Investment agreement signed between Teo Bee Tiong and Ong Teck Ghee
Teo Bee Tiong committed S$450,000 to Ong Teck Ghee
Investment agreement expired
Meeting between Teo Bee Tiong and Ong Teck Ghee
Teo Bee Tiong brought an action in Suit 567
Settlement deed made between Teo Bee Tiong and Ong Teck Ghee
Teo Bee Tiong discontinued Suit 567
Cut-off date for procuring the Singapore Order under the settlement agreement
Payment date of S$485,000 if Singapore Order was not issued
Letter of demand issued by Teo Bee Tiong's solicitors
Meeting between Teo Bee Tiong and Ong Teck Ghee
Teo Bee Tiong commenced action to enforce rights under the settlement agreement
Appeal allowed and judgment given in favour of the plaintiff

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Settlement Agreement
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant breached the settlement agreement by failing to make payment and that extrinsic evidence was inadmissible to contradict the clear terms of the agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to make payment as per settlement terms
      • Admissibility of extrinsic evidence to contradict settlement terms
  2. Admissibility of Parol Evidence
    • Outcome: The court ruled that the defendant's evidence was inadmissible under Section 94 of the Evidence Act as it sought to contradict the express terms of the Settlement Agreement.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Contradicting the terms of a written agreement
      • Exceptions to the parol evidence rule

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Summary Judgment
  2. Enforcement of Settlement Agreement
  3. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Settlement Agreement

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Real Estate Consortium Pte Ltd v East Coast Properties Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 758SingaporeCited for the principle that a valid settlement agreement governs the parties' legal relationship and puts an end to previously raised issues.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 94Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Settlement Agreement
  • Singapore Order
  • Investment Agreement
  • Summary Judgment
  • Parol Evidence Rule
  • Breach of Contract

15.2 Keywords

  • settlement agreement
  • summary judgment
  • contract law
  • singapore order
  • evidence act
  • parol evidence rule

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law80
Breach of Contract75
Summary Judgement60
Contractual Interpretation55
Formation of contract50
Interpretation of contractual terms45
Performance of Contract40
Variation35
Estoppel30
Interest25
Best Efforts Clause20
Warranties15
Sham Contract10
Restructuring and Insolvency5

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Settlement Agreements