Aries Telecoms v ViewQwest: Conversion Claim & Disgorgement of Profits

Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd sued ViewQwest Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore for conversion of IT equipment. Aries sought an account of profits or disgorgement of profits, and alternatively, punitive, exemplary, or aggravated damages. The court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, ruled against Aries on 7 February 2017, denying the claims for disgorgement of profits and punitive damages, limiting Aries' recovery to ordinary damages. ViewQwest had a contract with Fiberail Sdn Bhd and Aries. It was unclear from the documentation under each contract whether the equipment had been initially supplied to ViewQwest by Fiberail under Fiberail’s contract with ViewQwest or by Aries under its own contract with ViewQwest.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Aries was not entitled to claim an account of profits from ViewQwest nor an order for ViewQwest to disgorge its profits from the use of the equipment. Aries was also not entitled to punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages. Aries was entitled only to ordinary damages.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Aries Telecoms sued ViewQwest for conversion. The court denied Aries' claim for disgorgement of profits and punitive damages, limiting recovery to ordinary damages.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Aries Telecoms (M) Berhad (formerly known as V Telecoms Berhad)PlaintiffCorporationClaim DeniedLostTroy Yeo
ViewQwest Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment in favor of DefendantWonJohn Sze, Nicola Loh
Fiberail Sdn BhdThird PartyCorporation

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Troy YeoChye Legal Practice
John SzeJoseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Nicola LohJoseph Tan Jude Benny LLP

4. Facts

  1. Aries claimed ViewQwest refused to return IT equipment after a demand letter.
  2. ViewQwest claimed it received the equipment from Fiberail under a contract.
  3. Aries bought and paid for the equipment from the original supplier.
  4. ViewQwest eventually returned the equipment before trial, without prejudice.
  5. ViewQwest consented to interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed.
  6. Aries sought an account of profits or disgorgement of profits.
  7. ViewQwest believed it was entitled to use the equipment under its contract with Fiberail.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd (Fiberail Sdn Bhd, third party), Suit No 860 of 2013, [2017] SGHC 124

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Aries demanded the return of the equipment from ViewQwest.
ViewQwest replied to say that it had received the equipment from Fiberail.
Aries wrote to Fiberail.
Fiberail replied to say that the equipment did not belong to it and Aries was to liaise directly with ViewQwest to reclaim the equipment.
ViewQwest obtained a letter from Fiberail to say that the equipment was supplied to ViewQwest to establish an initial interconnection between Fiberail and ViewQwest.
The equipment was finally returned to Aries.
Trial commenced.
Trial adjourned.
Second tranche of trial commenced.
ViewQwest consented to interlocutory judgment being entered against it for damages to be assessed.
Interlocutory judgment granted in favour of Aries against ViewQwest.
Affidavit of Troy Yeo Siew Chye dated.
Plaintiff’s written submissions dated.
Summons 5786 was heard.
Court decided that Aries was not entitled to claim an account of profits from ViewQwest nor an order for ViewQwest to disgorge its profits from the use of the equipment. Court also decided that Aries was not entitled to punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages.
Aries filed a notice of appeal to the Court of Appeal against the 7 February 2017 Order.
Judgment Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Disgorgement of Profits
    • Outcome: The court held that Aries was not entitled to disgorgement of profits from ViewQwest.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [1952] 2 QB 246
      • [2013] 4 SLR 1317
  2. Punitive Damages
    • Outcome: The court held that Aries was not entitled to punitive, exemplary or aggravated damages from ViewQwest.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Account of Profits
  2. Disgorgement of Profits
  3. Punitive Damages
  4. Exemplary Damages
  5. Aggravated Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Conversion

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Telecommunications

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Strand Electric and Engineering Co Ltd v Brisford Entertainments LtdQueen's BenchYes[1952] 2 QB 246England and WalesDiscussed in relation to the user principle and the possibility of awarding damages for profits gained by a tortfeasor from the detention of property.
ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services)Court of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 1317SingaporeDiscussed in relation to the user principle and the possibility of awarding damages for profits gained by a tortfeasor from the detention of property.
Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd (Fiberail Sdn Bhd, third party)High CourtYes[2017] SGHC 83SingaporeReference to a related judgment.
PH Hydraulics & Engineering Pte Ltd v Airtrust (Hong Kong) Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2017] SGCA 26SingaporeCited for the principle that punitive damages are also referred to as exemplary damages.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Conversion
  • Disgorgement of Profits
  • Interlocutory Judgment
  • Letter of Demand
  • IT Equipment

15.2 Keywords

  • Conversion
  • Disgorgement of Profits
  • Punitive Damages
  • Singapore
  • Contract
  • Aries Telecoms
  • ViewQwest

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Remedies
  • Damages

17. Areas of Law

  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Conversion