Chan Gek Yong v Violet Netto: Striking Out Claim for Professional Negligence and Breach of Trust After Settlement Agreement

In Chan Gek Yong v Violet Netto, the Singapore High Court heard appeals against the Assistant Registrar's decision to strike out the plaintiff's claims of professional negligence and breach of trust against the defendants, Violet Netto and Ravi s/o Madasamy, after the parties had reached a settlement agreement at the Singapore Mediation Centre. The court dismissed the appeals, finding the settlement agreement valid and binding, and that allowing the suits to continue would be an abuse of process. The court ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of S$4,000.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court dismissed appeal to strike out claims after a settlement agreement, finding the agreement valid and binding.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ravi s/o MadasamyDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Chan Gek YongPlaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Violet NettoDefendant, RespondentIndividualAppeal AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Siong ThyeJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Harjean KaurAdvocatus Law LLP
Christopher Anand DanielAdvocatus Law LLP
Asik SadayanAdvocatus Law LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff claimed defendants were professionally negligent regarding her share of net sales proceeds from a Housing & Development Board property.
  2. Plaintiff claimed defendants breached trust and statutory duty regarding S$207,000 transferred from their client account without her consent.
  3. Parties agreed to resolve the suits through mediation at the Singapore Mediation Centre.
  4. Parties signed a Settlement Agreement at the Singapore Mediation Centre.
  5. Plaintiff refused to discontinue the Main Suits pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
  6. Defendants issued cheques totaling S$150,000 to the plaintiff pursuant to the Settlement Agreement.
  7. Plaintiff refused to accept the cheques issued by the defendants.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chan Gek Yong v Violet Netto (practising as L F Violet Netto) and another and another matter, Suit No 750 of 2012(Registrar’s Appeal No 290 of 2017) and Suit No 751 of 2012 (Registrar’s Appeal No 291 of 2017), [2018] SGHC 208

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff commenced Suit 750/2012 against the defendants alleging professional negligence and breach of duty of care.
Plaintiff commenced Suit 751/2012 against the defendants for breach of trust and breach of statutory duty.
Plaintiff and defendants agreed to resolve the Main Suits through mediation.
Parties signed the Settlement Agreement at the Singapore Mediation Centre.
Counsel for defendants explained the need to place a seal on the Settlement Agreement to the plaintiff.
Counsel for defendants informed plaintiff of formalities to seal the Settlement Agreement and reminded her of her obligation to file Notices of Discontinuance.
Plaintiff informed the court that she did not want to proceed with the Settlement Agreement.
Plaintiff did not file the Notices of Discontinuance pursuant to cl 2(1) of the Settlement Agreement.
Defendants issued four cheques totalling S$50,000 and 18 post-dated cheques totalling S$100,000 to the plaintiff.
AR granted the defendants’ applications to strike out the Main Suits.
Plaintiff filed a Supplementary Affidavit in Reply.
Tan Bee Bee filed an affidavit.
Chia Kok Kee filed an affidavit.
Chan Gek Yong filed an affidavit.
Defendants filed a Notice of Objection in respect of para 12 of the plaintiff’s 6th Affidavit.
Appeals dismissed.
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Validity of Settlement Agreement
    • Outcome: The court held that the Settlement Agreement was valid and binding.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Incapacity
      • Duress
      • Non est factum
    • Related Cases:
      • [2018] SGHC 173
      • [2011] 2 SLR 232
      • [1992] 3 SLR(R) 855
      • [2015] 1 SLR 396
  2. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court held that allowing the Main Suits to continue would be an abuse of the process.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 3 SLR 935
      • [2016] 4 SLR 1365

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Professional Negligence
  • Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Statutory Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Dispute Resolution

11. Industries

  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ng Kong Choon v Tang Wee GohHigh CourtYes[2016] 3 SLR 935SingaporeCited for the principle that it can be an abuse of process to litigate issues already determined in prior litigation or concluded by settlement agreement.
Venkatraman Kalyanaraman v Nithya Kalyani and othersHigh CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 1365SingaporeCited for the principle that it can be an abuse of process to litigate issues already determined in prior litigation or concluded by settlement agreement.
Ladd v MarshallNot AvailableNo[1954] 1 WLR 1489England and WalesCited for the test to determine whether to allow a party to file further affidavits.
Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette)High CourtNo[2003] 3 SLR(R) 666SingaporeCited by the defendants for the application of the Ladd v Marshall test.
Lian Soon Construction Pte Ltd v Guan Qian Realty Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1999] 1 SLR(R) 1053SingaporeCited for the principle that a Judge in Chambers has discretion to admit fresh evidence in a Registrar's Appeal.
Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette)Court of AppealYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 392SingaporeCited for the distinction between the standard to be applied in appeals where the hearing before the Registrar had the characteristics of a full trial or where oral evidence had been recorded and hearings before the Registrar that were interlocutory in nature.
WBG Network (S) Pte Ltd v Sunny Daisy LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 1133SingaporeCited for explaining the distinction between the standard to be applied in appeals where the hearing before the Registrar had the characteristics of a full trial or where oral evidence had been recorded and hearings before the Registrar that were interlocutory in nature.
Resorts World at Sentosa Pte Ltd v Lee Fook KheunHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 173SingaporeCited for the principles on incapacity due to intoxication and its effect on the validity of a contract.
E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and another (Orion Oil Ltd and another, interveners)High CourtYes[2011] 2 SLR 232SingaporeCited for the conditions that must be proved for a settlement agreement to be void on the ground of duress.
Lee Siew Chun v Sourgrapes Packaging Products Trading Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 855SingaporeCited for the principle that the doctrine of non est factum is a narrow one and is applicable only in very exceptional cases.
Kuek Siew Chew v Kuek Siang Wei and anotherHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 396SingaporeCited for the requirements to invoke the doctrine of non est factum.

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

  • Settlement Agreement
  • Mediation
  • Professional Negligence
  • Breach of Trust
  • Abuse of Process
  • Incapacity
  • Duress
  • Non est factum

15.2 Keywords

  • settlement agreement
  • mediation
  • professional negligence
  • breach of trust
  • abuse of process
  • contract law
  • civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Settlement Agreement95
Abuse of Process90
Contract Law80
Mediation80
Breach of Contract70
Civil Procedure60
Duress50
Estoppel40
Non est factum30
Mistake30
Arbitration20

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Mediation
  • Settlement Agreements