Chua Kwee Sin v Venerable Sek Meow Di: Dispute over USD 1M Casino Investment
In Chua Kwee Sin v Venerable Sek Meow Di, the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding a USD 1 million investment in a Cambodian casino. Chua Kwee Sin, the plaintiff, claimed Venerable Sek Meow Di, the defendant, failed to return the investment. The defendant denied liability and implicated Tang Kheng Tiong, the third party, as the beneficiary. Tay Yong Kwang J dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding no agreement or fraudulent misrepresentation by the defendant, and that the defendant had passed the money to the third party. The defendant's claim for indemnity against the third party was dismissed as academic.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dispute over a USD 1 million investment in a Cambodian casino. The plaintiff's claim for return of investment was dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chua Kwee Sin | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Terence Hua, Lee Wei Fan |
| Venerable Sek Meow Di | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Kasi Ramalingam |
| Tang Kheng Tiong | Third Party | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Neutral | Zaminder Singh Gill |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Terence Hua | Anthony Law Corporation |
| Lee Wei Fan | Anthony Law Corporation |
| Kasi Ramalingam | Raj Kumar & Rama |
| Zaminder Singh Gill | Hillborne Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff claimed entitlement to return of USD 1m investment from defendant.
- Defendant denied liability, claiming third party was beneficiary of investment.
- Plaintiff and third party entered into a written partnership agreement.
- Plaintiff handed over USD 350,000 and USD 500,000 in cash to the defendant.
- Plaintiff handed over S$100,000 in cash and S$110,000 in cheques to the defendant.
- Third party issued two receipts for the investment sum.
- The defendant passed the plaintiff’s money to the third party.
5. Formal Citations
- Chua Kwee Sin v Venerable Sek Meow Di (Tang Kheng Tiong, third party), Suit No 3 of 2011, [2013] SGHC 265
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant approached plaintiff with casino business proposal. | |
| Plaintiff and third party executed partnership agreement. | |
| Plaintiff handed over USD 350,000 to defendant. | |
| Plaintiff handed over USD 500,000 to defendant. | |
| Plaintiff handed over S$100,000 in cash and S$110,000 in cheques to defendant. | |
| Golden Empire Services Limited incorporated in BVI. | |
| Movie released. | |
| Third party handed plaintiff two receipts. | |
| Plaintiff's solicitors issued letter of demand. | |
| Suit filed. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that the alleged oral agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant was not proved.
- Category: Substantive
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court held that fraudulent misrepresentation on the part of the defendant was not proved.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2006] 3 SLR(R) 469
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiff's claim in unjust enrichment.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2011] 3 SLR 540
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 788
8. Remedies Sought
- Restitution of monies advanced
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Unjust Enrichment
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Gambling
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chua Kwee Chen and others (as Westlake Eating House) and another v Koh Choon Chin | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 469 | Singapore | Cited for the standard of proof in civil proceedings where fraud and/or dishonesty is alleged. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited for the elements that must be satisfied for a claim in unjust enrichment to succeed. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another suit | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 788 | Singapore | Cited for the recognition of ministerial receipt. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Casino Investment
- Partnership Agreement
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Unjust Enrichment
- Ministerial Receipt
15.2 Keywords
- Casino
- Investment
- Contract
- Fraud
- Singapore
- High Court
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Restitution
- Unjust Enrichment
- Casino Investment
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Restitution
- Unjust Enrichment