SCT Technologies v Western Copper: Burden of Proof in Debt Recovery for Unpaid Invoices

In SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal regarding a claim by SCT Technologies to recover money on unpaid invoices from Western Copper. Western Copper argued it had already paid the sum, while SCT Technologies contended the payments were for other debts. The court, with Chao Hick Tin JA delivering the judgment, allowed the appeal, holding that the burden of proving the purpose of the payments rested on Western Copper, and they failed to discharge that burden.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Written Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal addresses the burden of proof in a debt recovery case involving unpaid invoices, ruling in favor of SCT Technologies.

1.7 Decision Date

4 January 2016

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
SCT TECHNOLOGIES PTE LTD	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Kelvin Lee Ming Hui of WNLEX LLC Josephine Chong Siew Nyuk of Josephine Chong LLC
WESTERN COPPER CO LTD	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Ng Hweelon of Veritas Law Corporation Ibsen Low of Veritas Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of Appeal	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of Appeal	No
Judith Prakash	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Kelvin Lee Ming Hui	WNLEX LLC
Josephine Chong Siew Nyuk	Josephine Chong LLC
Ng Hweelon	Veritas Law Corporation
Ibsen Low	Veritas Law Corporation

4. Facts

SCT Technologies sued Western Copper to recover money on three unpaid invoices.
Western Copper claimed it had already paid the sum claimed in full.
SCT Technologies argued the payments were for other debts.
The bank statements provided by Western Copper did not specify the purpose of the payments.
The handwritten notes on the bank statements were made after the proceedings commenced.
The payments recorded in the bank statements did not match the exact amounts of the invoices.

5. Formal Citations

SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd, Civil Appeal No 74 of 2015, [2015] SGCA 71
SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd, , [2015] SGHC 135

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-11-14	Invoice I-27678 issued
2007-11-20	Invoice I-27712 issued
2007-12-26	Partial payment made for invoice I-27678
2008-01-11	Payment made for invoice I-27712
2008-01-30	Invoice I-28172 issued
2008-02-01	Payment made for invoice I-27678
2008-02-12	Payment made for invoices I-27678 and I-27712
2008-03-07	Payment made for invoice I-28172
2008-04-03	Payment made for invoice I-28172
2008-04-04	Partial payment made for invoice I-27712
2008-05-08	Payment made for invoice I-28172
2008-05-10	Partial payment made for invoice I-28172
2013-08-21	Statement of Claim filed
2013-09-13	Defence filed
2013-11-20	Reply filed
2016-01-05	Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The court held that the burden of proving the purpose of payments made by the respondent lies on the respondent.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Allocation of burden of proof
  - Evidential burden
  - Legal burden
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 4 SLR 855
  - [2011] 2 SLR 63
  - [1956] 99 CLR 560
  - [2008] 3 SLR(R) 212
  - [2013] SGHC 144
  - [2015] SGHC 92
  - [2015] HKEC 1232
  - [2015] 5 SLR 231
Discharge of Debt by Payment
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent failed to prove that the payments were made to discharge the debt on the invoices.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1956] 99 CLR 560
  - [2008] 3 SLR(R) 212
  - [2015] 5 SLR 231

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Debt Recovery
Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Debt Recovery

11. Industries

Manufacturing
Technology

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR 855	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding the legal and evidential burden of proof.
Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (Trading as Rabobank International), Singapore Branch v Motorola Electronics Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 2 SLR 63	Singapore	Cited for the principle that he who asserts must prove, consistent with ss 103 and 105 of the Evidence Act.
Young v Queensland Trustees Limited	High Court of Australia	Yes	[1956] 99 CLR 560	Australia	Cited for the principle that in an action for debt, the onus of proving payment lies on the defendant.
Wee Yue Chew v Su Sh-Hsyu	High Court	Yes	[2008] 3 SLR(R) 212	Singapore	Cited with approval for the principle that the burden of proving payment lies on the defendant.
Ma Ong Kee v Cham Poh Meng and another suit	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 144	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the burden of proving payment lies on the defendant.
Lim Andy v Tea Yeok Kian Terence	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 92	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the burden of proving payment lies on the defendant.
Big Island Construction (HK) Ltd v Wu Yi Development Co Ltd	Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal	Yes	[2015] HKEC 1232	Hong Kong	Distinguished from the present case; clarifies that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to prove the existence of a loan agreement, but shifts to the defendant if the defense of payment is raised.
Cory Brothers and Company, Limited v The Owners of the Turkish Steamship “Mecca”, The “Mecca”	House of Lords	Yes	[1897] AC 286	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the debtor has the right to appropriate a payment to any debt at the time of payment.
Chua Kok Tee David v DBS Bank Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 231	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the burden of proving repayment of a debt lies on the defendant-debtor.
SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 135	Singapore	The High Court decision that was appealed in the present case.
McCarthy v McIntyre	Federal Court of Australia	Yes	[1999] FCA 784	Australia	Cited for the principle that in an action for debt, the onus of proving payment lies on the defendant.
Palermo Seafoods Pty Ltd v Lunapas Pty Ltd (No 2)	Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2014] NSWSC 1323	Australia	Cited for the principle that in an action for debt, the onus of proving payment lies on the defendant.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Burden of proof
Legal burden
Evidential burden
Discharge of debt
Confession and avoidance
Invoices
Payment
Appropriation of payments

15.2 Keywords

debt recovery
unpaid invoices
burden of proof
payment
Singapore
Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contract Law	75
Evidence Law	60
Civil Procedure	50
Debt Recovery	40
Commercial Transactions	30

16. Subjects

Civil Litigation
Contract Law
Debt Recovery
Evidence