Leong Eva v Loo Yek Hwee Robin: Partnership Dispute over Dong Ba LLP

In Leong Eva v Loo Yek Hwee Robin, the High Court of Singapore ruled in favor of Leong Eva in a dispute against Loo Yek Hwee Robin and another regarding the beneficial interest in the partnership business, Dong Ba LLP. The court found that the beneficial interest in the partnership had vested in Leong Eva and ordered Loo Yek Hwee Robin to transfer the partnership to Leong Eva. The court dismissed Loo Yek Hwee Robin's counterclaim and ordered the defendants to pay damages and costs to Leong Eva.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Leong Eva sues Loo Yek Hwee Robin over a partnership dispute regarding Dong Ba LLP. The court ruled in favor of Leong, vesting the partnership in her.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Leong EvaPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWonAlvin Chang, Kimberly Yang
Loo Yek Hwee RobinDefendantIndividualCounterclaim DismissedLost
ChanDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Alvin ChangM & A Law Corporation
Kimberly YangM & A Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Leong contracted with Chan and Shin to purchase a pub for $74,100.
  2. Leong paid Chan $30,000 on 1 February 2012.
  3. Loo was registered as a partner of the Partnership on 1 February 2012.
  4. Leong paid Chan the remaining $30,000 on 15 February 2012.
  5. The licenses were transferred on 30 April 2012.
  6. Leong paid the remaining sum of $10,000 to Chan on 4 May 2012.
  7. Loo walked out of the Premises on 29 May 2012 after an argument with Tan.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Leong Eva v Loo Yek Hwee Robin and another, Suit No 545 of 2012, [2013] SGHC 241

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Leong contracted with Chan and Shin to purchase a pub.
Leong paid Chan $30,000.
Loo was registered as a partner of the Partnership.
Leong paid Chan the remaining $30,000 in cash plus $3,100.
Leong made a part payment of $4,100.
Licenses were transferred.
Leong paid the remaining sum of $10,000 to Chan.
Loo walked out of the Premises after an argument with Tan.
Leong’s solicitors issued a letter of demand to Chan.
Leong’s solicitors also wrote to Loo.
Loo returned to the Premises and attempted to have the locks changed.
Tan and others removed items from the Premises.
Loo took over the running of the Business.
Court made orders in favor of the plaintiff.
Defendants filed a notice of appeal.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Beneficial Ownership of Partnership
    • Outcome: The court found that the beneficial interest in the partnership business had vested in the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court found that Loo's actions were in breach of his fiduciary duties owed to Leong as her agent and nominee.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Transfer of Partnership
  2. Damages
  3. Account of Profits

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Hospitality

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Partnership
  • Beneficial Interest
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Liquor License
  • Public Entertainment License

15.2 Keywords

  • partnership
  • fiduciary duty
  • contract
  • pub
  • licenses

16. Subjects

  • Partnership Dispute
  • Contract Law
  • Agency Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Partnership Law
  • Contract Law