G1 Construction v Astoria Development: Summary Judgment & Illegal Moneylending
G1 Construction Pte Ltd and Mface Pte Ltd sued Astoria Development Pte Ltd and others in three related suits (Suit No 1051 of 2016, Suit No 1052 of 2016, and Suit No 885 of 2017) in the High Court of Singapore. The suits concerned claims for payment for construction works, repayment of loans, and enforcement of a settlement agreement. The defendants appealed the Assistant Registrar's decisions on summary judgment applications. Justice Chan Seng Onn allowed the appeal in part in RA 79, reducing the summary judgment amount, and dismissed the appeals in RA 80 and RA 122. The court addressed issues of sham contracts, illegal moneylending, duress, and repudiation of the settlement agreement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal in Registrar's Appeal No 79 of 2018 allowed in part; appeals in Registrar's Appeal Nos 80 and 122 of 2018 dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding summary judgment in construction dispute. Court addressed claims of illegal moneylending and repudiation of settlement agreement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mface Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Won | |
| G1 Construction Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | |
| Astoria Development Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Pang Sor Tin | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Ong Ah Choo | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Pang Gee Leong | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Poh Ching Yee | Defendant | Individual | |||
| Ranesis Development Pte Ltd | Defendant, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Hui Kang | Defendant, Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- G1 is in the business of construction.
- Mface is in the business of website design.
- Astoria is in the business of real estate development.
- Mface and Astoria entered into ten loan agreements.
- G1 and Astoria entered into a Construction Agreement and a Collateral Agreement.
- The Settlement Agreement was for the Plaintiffs to discontinue all enforcement actions and outstanding suits against the Defendants, in exchange for $13.8 million to be paid by Astoria.
- The Plaintiffs did not take any action to withdraw the Attachment Orders.
5. Formal Citations
- G1 Construction Pte Ltd v Astoria Development Pte Ltd and another and other suits, Suit No 1051 of 2016 (Registrar’s Appeal No 79 of 2018), Suit No 1052 of 2016 (Registrar’s Appeal No 80 of 2018), and Suit No 885 of 2017 (Registrar’s Appeal No 122 of 2018), [2018] SGHC 225
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mface and Astoria entered into first loan agreement. | |
| Mface and Astoria entered into tenth loan agreement. | |
| G1 and Astoria entered into Construction Agreement and Collateral Agreement. | |
| G1 commenced Suit No 1051 of 2016 against Astoria and Pang Sor Tin. | |
| Mface commenced Suit No 1052 of 2016 against Astoria, Ong Ah Choo, Pang Gee Leong and Poh Ching Yee. | |
| Assistant Registrar Li Yuen Ting granted summary judgment to G1 in Suit No 1051 of 2016. | |
| Assistant Registrar Li Yuen Ting granted conditional leave to defend to defendants in Suit No 1052 of 2016. | |
| G1 and Mface successfully applied to attach Astoria’s interest in the Development. | |
| Mface applied for writs of seizure and sale against Ong Ah Choo, Astoria and Pang Sor Tin. | |
| Construction related equipment and building materials were seized by the Sheriff of the Supreme Court. | |
| Plaintiffs entered into a settlement agreement with Astoria. | |
| Mface requested the Sheriff of the Supreme Court to release the properties that were seized. | |
| Mface filed a Notice of Discontinuance for parts of its claim in Suit No 1052 of 2016. | |
| Plaintiffs commenced Suit No 885 of 2017 against Astoria, the Guarantors, and Tan Hui Kang. | |
| Defendants filed Notices of Appeal to a Judge of High Court in Chambers. | |
| Assistant Registrar Khng held that it would not be appropriate for her to give summary judgment in respect of $8,837,800.35. | |
| Defendants filed a Notice of Appeal to a Judge of High Court in Chambers against the decision of AR Khng. | |
| Hearing before Judge Chan Seng Onn. | |
| Hearing for Registrar's Appeal Nos 79 and 80. | |
| Judgment delivered by Chan Seng Onn J. |
7. Legal Issues
- Sham Contracts
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant's assertion that the G1 Agreements are sham contracts did not present a reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence.
- Category: Substantive
- Illegal Moneylending
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant's assertion that the Mface Loans were illegal moneylending transactions did not present a reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence.
- Category: Substantive
- Duress
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant's defence of duress was shadowy at best.
- Category: Substantive
- Repudiation
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant's defence of repudiation was also shadowy at best.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Summary Judgment
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Enforcement of Settlement Agreement
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 32 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a defendant will not be given leave to defend based on mere assertions alone in an application for summary judgment. |
| Banque de Paris et des Pays-Bas (Suisse) SA v Costa de Naray and Christopher John Walters | N/A | Yes | [1984] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 21 | N/A | Cited for the principle that in an application for summary judgment, the defendant will not be given leave to defend based on mere assertions alone. |
| Microsoft Corporation v Electro-Wide Limited | N/A | Yes | [1997] FSR 580 | N/A | Cited for the standard to be applied in determining whether there is a reasonable probability that the defendant has a real or bona fide defence in relation to the issues. |
| Wee Cheng Swee Henry v Jo Baby Kartika Polim | N/A | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 250 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that conditional leave to defend is appropriate where the defendants have succeeded in showing a reasonable probability of a real or bona fide defence which ought to be tried, but that defence is shadowy. |
| Sheagar s/o T M Veloo v Belfield International (Hong Kong) Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 524 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Moneylenders Act must not be seen by desperate defendants as a “legal panacea” to stave off their financial woes. |
| M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko | N/A | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 325 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court would not grant leave to defend if all the defendant provides is a mere assertion, contained in an affidavit, of a given situation which forms the basis of his defence. |
| E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and another (Orion Oil Ltd and another, interveners) | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 232 | Singapore | Cited for the two elements for actionable duress: pressure amounting to compulsion of the will of the victim, and the illegitimacy of the pressure exerted. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Summary Judgment
- Illegal Moneylending
- Settlement Agreement
- Construction Agreement
- Collateral Agreement
- Attachment Orders
- Repudiatory Breach
- Conditional Leave to Defend
- Excluded Moneylender
- Guarantors
15.2 Keywords
- summary judgment
- illegal moneylending
- construction
- settlement agreement
- appeal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Illegal moneylending | 90 |
| Money and moneylenders | 85 |
| Summary Judgement | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Credit and Security | 70 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Dispute
- Moneylending
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure