Almega Investments v Chiang Sing Jeong: Breach of Contract & Implied Terms Dispute
In Almega Investments Pte Ltd & Anor v Chiang Sing Jeong, the High Court of Singapore addressed a breach of contract claim concerning two agreements for transferring shares in Sentosa Tiger Island Pte Ltd (STI). Almega Investments and Lim Chong Poon, the plaintiffs, sued Chiang Sing Jeong, the defendant, for allegedly breaching an implied contractual obligation to procure approval from Sentosa Development Corporation (SDC) for the share transfers. Chiang counterclaimed for the return of a deposit. The court dismissed both the plaintiffs' claim and Chiang's counterclaim, finding no breach of implied terms and determining that the conditions for the deposit return were not met.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs’ claim and Defendant’s counterclaim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving Almega Investments and Chiang Sing Jeong over breach of contract and implied terms related to share transfers.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Almega Investments Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Choo Zheng Xi, Elaine Low, Ng Bin Hong |
Lim Chong Poon | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | Choo Zheng Xi, Elaine Low, Ng Bin Hong |
Chiang Sing Jeong | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim Dismissed | Dismissed | Pratap Kishan |
3. Judges
Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
---|---|---|
Debbie Ong | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
Counsel Name | Organization |
---|---|
Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
Elaine Low | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
Ng Bin Hong | Peter Low & Choo LLC |
Pratap Kishan | Ho Wong Law Practice LLC |
4. Facts
- Almega and Kek were to transfer shares in STI to Chiang and RRR, respectively, contingent on SDC approval.
- Chiang was allegedly obligated to procure SDC's approval for the share transfers by a specified date.
- The agreements were allegedly varied to include a term that Chiang would complete the purchase if the transfer to RRR failed.
- SDC discovered changes in STI's shareholding and directorship without its prior consent.
- SDC required full particulars of any new investor in order to grant approval.
- RRR withdrew from participating in the STI project after performing its due diligence.
5. Formal Citations
- Almega Investments Pte Ltd and another v Chiang Sing Jeong, Suit No 517 of 2014, [2017] SGHC 196
6. Timeline
Date | Event |
---|---|
STI incorporated by Chiang | |
STI began leasing premises from SDC | |
Allotment of additional shares | |
Allotment of additional shares | |
Soh joined STI’s board of directors | |
SDC discovered changes in STI’s shareholding and directorship | |
SDC notified STI of breaches of the Building Agreement | |
HHP wrote to WongP regarding the in-principle agreement | |
SDC wrote to STI requiring the breaches to be remedied by noon on 9 May 2008 | |
STI’s solicitors wrote to SDC’s solicitors to seek SDC’s confirmation | |
Chiang, Kek and Almega entered into the Terms of Transfer | |
Chiang and Lim agreed to a set of Supplemental Terms of Transfer | |
SDC had not responded to HHP’s letter of 6 May 2008 | |
WongP wrote to HHP to ascertain Chiang’s position | |
SDC stated that it had no objections to the proposed rectification of the breaches | |
WongP wrote to HHP requesting an update on SDC’s request for information | |
STI held a board meeting | |
WongP wrote to HHP purportedly to record the parties’ agreement to vary the TOT | |
HHP on behalf of STI, wrote to R&T to address SDC’s request for full details of RRR | |
SDC’s representatives met with STI’s representatives and RRR’s representatives | |
SDC sent a letter to STI | |
RRR informed SDC that it was withdrawing from participating in the STI project | |
SDC replied RRR | |
Parties attempted to remedy the breaches of the SDC Supplemental Agreement | |
Parties attempted to remedy the breaches of the SDC Supplemental Agreement | |
STI failed to launch the attraction by the Temporary Occupation Permit date | |
STI was compulsorily wound up | |
Suit No 684 of 2014 | |
Suit No 517 of 2014 | |
Hearing took place between 25–28 October and 3 November 2016 | |
Hearing took place | |
Judgment issued | |
Grounds of Decision issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found no breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to procure SDC approval
- Failure to complete share transfers
- Implied Term
- Outcome: The court found an implied term existed but was not breached.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Obligation to use reasonable endeavours
- Responsibility for procuring approvals
- Contractual Variation
- Outcome: The court found that the parties did not agree to the alleged varied terms.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Agreement to varied terms
- Consideration for variation
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Tourism
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ong Chay Tong & Sons (Pte) Ltd v Ong Hoo Eng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 1 SLR(R) 305 | Singapore | Cited as authority that board meeting minutes could constitute a variation of a pre-existing agreement. |
Sembcorp Marine v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step process for implying terms into a contract and the conditions under which a term can be implied. |
KS Energy Services Ltd v BR Energy (M) Sdn Bhd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 905 | Singapore | Cited for the legal test for determining whether an obligation to use “all reasonable endeavours” has been fulfilled. |
Travista Development Pte Ltd v Tan Kim Swee Augustine | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 474 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of 'all reasonable endeavours'. |
Ong Khim Heng Daniel v Leonie Court Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 670 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a covenant to use best endeavours is not a warranty to produce the desired results. |
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
- Share Transfer
- Implied Term
- SDC Approval
- Reasonable Endeavours
- Terms of Transfer
- Supplemental Terms of Transfer
- Varied Terms
- Completion Date
- Deposit
- Rectification of Breaches
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- breach
- implied terms
- share transfer
- SDC
- Singapore
- Almega
- Chiang
- Sentosa
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Commercial Law
- Shareholder Agreements
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Implied Terms
- Share Transfers