Alphire Group Pte Ltd v Law Chau Loon: Duty to Account and Burden of Proof in Trust Dispute

In Alphire Group Pte Ltd v Law Chau Loon, the Singapore High Court addressed a claim by Alphire Group against Law Chau Loon for failing to account for 68 sums of money collected on its behalf. The court found in favor of the plaintiff for sums in Categories A and B of the Scott schedule, totaling SGD 5,905,217.74, but not for Categories D and E. The court ordered the defendant to pay SGD 3,526,048.71 plus interest.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Oral Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving Alphire Group and Law Chau Loon concerning failure to account for funds. Judgment for Plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

15 November 2017

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Alphire Group Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Judgment for Plaintiff	Won	Timothy Ng of Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC Jaime Lye of Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC Collin Seah of Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC Reuben Tan of Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Law Chau Loon	Defendant	Individual	Judgment against Defendant	Lost	Lim Min of Straits Law Practice LLC Palaniappan Sundararaj of Independent Practitioner Thangavelu of Thangavelu LLC Syafiqah binte Ahmad Fu’ad of Thangavelu LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Vinodh Coomaraswamy	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Timothy Ng	Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Jaime Lye	Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Collin Seah	Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Reuben Tan	Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Lim Min	Straits Law Practice LLC
Palaniappan Sundararaj	Independent Practitioner
Thangavelu	Thangavelu LLC
Syafiqah binte Ahmad Fu’ad	Thangavelu LLC

4. Facts

The plaintiff, Alphire Group, claimed the defendant, Law Chau Loon, failed to account for 68 sums of money.
The defendant admitted to collecting some sums but claimed he paid them to the plaintiff or casinos on the plaintiff's behalf.
The parties categorized the 68 sums into Categories A, B, C, D, and E in a Scott schedule.
The defendant admitted collecting sums in Categories A and B but denied collecting sums in Categories D and E.
The plaintiff commissioned a Stone Forest report to review its accounts, but it contained discrepancies.
The defendant was a director of the plaintiff at the material time.
The plaintiff acknowledged that the defendant has paid SGD 1,737,945 and HKD 3,907,520 out of the Category B sums.

5. Formal Citations

Alphire Group Pte Ltd v Law Chau Loon, Suit No 822 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 297

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2012-05-01	Plaintiff incorporated
2012-08-01	Lim Siew Mei began working for the plaintiff
2014-09-01	Plaintiff ceased carrying on business
2015-08-13	Statement of claim filed
2015-09-01	Defendant ceased to be a director of the plaintiff
2015-12-04	Defence filed
2016-03-04	Defendant’s particulars served pursuant to order of court
2016-10-12	Alicia Chua’s affidavit of evidence-in-chief
2016-10-13	RS Ramasamy’s affidavit of evidence-in-chief
2016-10-13	Law Chau Loon’s affidavit of evidence-in-chief
2016-10-13	Lim Siew Mei’s affidavit of evidence-in-chief
2016-11-22	Trial began
2017-06-22	Defendant’s closing submissions
2017-06-22	Plaintiff’s closing submissions
2017-07-20	Plaintiff’s reply submissions
2017-07-20	Defendant’s reply submissions
2017-08-07	Judgment reserved
2017-11-16	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The court found the defendant liable for failing to account for sums collected on behalf of the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The court determined that the defendant, having admitted to collecting funds, bore the burden of proving he had properly accounted for them.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Account of Profits

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Trust
Failure to Account

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Gambling
Tourism

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR 1471	Singapore	Cited for the principle of 'confession and avoidance' in pleadings and the burden of proof.
Yap Son On v Ding Pei Zhen	N/A	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 219	Singapore	Discussed in relation to the applicability of section 108 of the Evidence Act regarding the burden of proof for accounting parties.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 105	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Duty to account
Confession and avoidance
Scott schedule
Junket operator
Burden of proof
Accounting party

15.2 Keywords

Trust
Accounting
Burden of Proof
Singapore
High Court
Civil Case

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Duty to Account	90
Trust Law	75
Confession and avoidance defence	70
Evidence	60
Civil Procedure	40

16. Subjects

Trust Law
Evidence Law
Civil Litigation