Sea-Shore Transportation v Technik-Soil: Conversion & Damages for Equipment Disposal

In Sea-Shore Transportation Pte Ltd v Technik-Soil (Asia) Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard a case involving a claim by Sea-Shore for unpaid rent and a counterclaim by Technik-Soil for conversion, detinue, negligence, and breach of contract. The court found Sea-Shore liable for conversion for selling Technik-Soil's equipment without the right to do so, but awarded Technik-Soil only $60,000 in damages due to a lack of sufficient evidence regarding the quantity and value of the equipment. The court entered judgment for Sea-Shore in the sum of $226,110 on its claim for unpaid rent.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Defendant on Counterclaim

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Sea-Shore liable for conversion for selling Technik-Soil's equipment without right. Damages of $60,000 awarded due to lack of proof of equipment value.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Sea-Shore Transportation Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Technik-Soil (Asia) Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for Defendant on CounterclaimPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Audrey LimJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Mohamed Nawaz KamilProvidence Law Asia LLC
Wong Joon WeeProvidence Law Asia LLC
S MagintharanEssex LLC
Vineetha GunasekaranEssex LLC
Tan Xiyun BenedictEssex LLC

4. Facts

  1. Sea-Shore and Technik-Soil entered into a Service Agreement for storage space rental.
  2. Technik-Soil owed Sea-Shore $266,110 in rent arrears as of September 30, 2014.
  3. Sea-Shore disposed of Technik-Soil's equipment for $40,000 and applied it to the debt.
  4. Technik-Soil counterclaimed for conversion, detinue, negligence, and breach of contract.
  5. Sea-Shore sold Technik-Soil’s equipment to Metal Recycle Pte Ltd for $40,000.
  6. The Service Agreement did not expressly provide for a right of sale.
  7. Technik-Soil claimed 198 pieces of Relocated Equipment and 16 pieces of Additional Equipment were missing.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sea-Shore Transportation Pte Ltd v Technik-Soil (Asia) Pte Ltd, Suit No 415 of 2015, [2018] SGHC 231

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Service Agreement entered into
Technik-Soil relocated equipment from Jalan Papan to the Premises
Technik-Soil relocated equipment from Jalan Papan to the Premises
Technik-Soil ceased to pay monthly rent
Shin asked Deen for more time to make payment
Technik-Soil failed to relocate its equipment
Technik-Soil made partial repayment of the outstanding rent
Technik-Soil made partial repayment of the outstanding rent
Technik-Soil owed Sea-Shore arrears of rent totalling $266,110
Sea-Shore's lawyers issued the 1st Demand Letter
Sea-Shore's lawyers sent the 2nd Demand Letter
Technik-Soil replied to ask for more time to make payment
Sea-Shore replied to state that it was willing to consider an extension of time for repayment
Technik-Soil moved more equipment to the Premises
Sea-Shore disposed of the equipment which Technik-Soil had stored at Sea-Shore’s premises
Sea-Shore sold all of Technik-Soil’s equipment to Metal Recycle Pte Ltd
Technik-Soil lodged a police report
Technik-Soil’s lawyers wrote to Sea-Shore to inform them of the missing equipment
Shin found that all of the Relocated Equipment and the Additional Equipment had completely disappeared
Sea-Shore’s lawyers replied to say that Sea-Shore had disposed of Technik-Soil’s equipment to settle Technik-Soil’s rent arrears
Sea-Shore commenced this suit against Technik-Soil
Judgment for Sea-Shore in the sum of $226,110
Trial began
Trial concluded
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Conversion
    • Outcome: The court found Sea-Shore liable in conversion for selling Technik-Soil's equipment without the right to do so.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101
  2. Measure of Damages
    • Outcome: The court awarded Technik-Soil $60,000 in damages due to a lack of sufficient evidence regarding the quantity and value of the equipment.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 5 SLR 541
  3. Right to Dispose of Goods
    • Outcome: The court found that Sea-Shore did not have the right to dispose of Technik-Soil's equipment to discharge the unpaid rent.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Conversion
  • Detinue
  • Negligence
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Transportation
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 193SingaporeCited regarding the test for implying a right of sale based on business efficacy.
Ang Sin Hock v Khoo Eng LimCourt of AppealYes[2010] 3 SLR 179SingaporeCited to show that Sea-Shore had accepted Technik-Soil’s offer contained in the 2013 Letter by conduct.
Compaq Computer Asia Pte Ltd v Computer Interface (S) Pte LtdN/AYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 316SingaporeCited regarding the formation of a contract is assessed objectively and a party’s acceptance of a contract must be sufficiently clear and unequivocal.
Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte LtdN/AYes[2004] 4 SLR(R) 258SingaporeCited regarding the formation of a contract is assessed objectively and a party’s acceptance of a contract must be sufficiently clear and unequivocal.
Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore LtdN/AYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101SingaporeCited regarding Sea-Shore was liable in conversion, as there has been an unauthorised dealing with Technik-Soil’s equipment.
Marco Polo Shipping Co Pte Ltd v Fairmacs Shipping & Transport Services Pte LtdN/AYes[2015] 5 SLR 541SingaporeCited regarding the measure of damages is essentially the market value of the converted equipment at the date of conversion or the cost of replacing the converted equipment.
Biofuel Industries Pte Ltd v V8 Environmental Pte LtdSingapore Court of AppealYes[2018] SGCA 28SingaporeCited regarding proving entitlement to damages, Technik-Soil must show both the fact of damage and its amount.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623SingaporeCited regarding the proof of damage requires a flexible approach.
Coldman v HillN/AYes[1919] 1 KB 443England and WalesCited regarding a person who, having converted property, refuses to produce it such that its exact value may be known is liable for the greatest value that such an article could have.
Armory v DelamirieN/AYes(1722) 1 Stra 505, 93 ER 664England and WalesCited regarding a person who, having converted property, refuses to produce it such that its exact value may be known is liable for the greatest value that such an article could have.
Browning v BrachersEngland and Wales Court of AppealYes[2005] EWCA Civ 753England and WalesCited regarding the Armory principle has been accepted and restated by the English courts as raising an evidential presumption in the claimant’s favour.
Glenbrook Capital LP v HamiltonN/AYes[2014] EWHC 2297 (Comm)England and WalesCited regarding the Armory principle has been accepted and restated by the English courts as raising an evidential presumption in the claimant’s favour.
Murphy v Overton Investments Pty LtdHigh Court of AustraliaYes[2004] HCA 3AustraliaCited regarding the trial judge may think it proper to draw inferences in favour of the appellants, if it is concluded that the respondent’s wrong itself made quantification difficult.
Zabihi v Janzemini & OrsEngland and Wales Court of AppealYes[2009] EWCA 851England and WalesCited regarding the full rigour of an adverse presumption applies only where a party has intentionally and in bad faith destroyed or refused to produce the subject matter in question.
Ticketnet Corporation v Air CanadaN/AYes(1997) 154 DLR (4th) 271CanadaCited regarding the Armory principle should only apply where the wrongdoer’s acts make it difficult or impossible for the innocent party to prove its loss.
Bangle v LafreniereN/AYes2012 BCSC 256CanadaCited regarding the Armory principle should only apply where the wrongdoer’s acts make it difficult or impossible for the innocent party to prove its loss.
Colbeck v Diamanta (UK) LtdN/AYes[2002] EWHC 616England and WalesCited regarding any presumption must still be consistent with the rest of the facts of the case and founded on the evidence that has been presented.
Double G Communications Ltd v News Group International LtdN/AYes[2011] EWHC 961England and WalesCited regarding any presumption must still be consistent with the rest of the facts of the case and founded on the evidence that has been presented.
Saeng-Un Udom v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited regarding a judge should not substitute his own views for those of an uncontradicted expert.
Sakthivel Punithavathi v Public ProsecutorN/AYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 983SingaporeCited regarding a court must not unquestioningly accept unchallenged evidence.
Lo Sook Ling Adela v Au Mei Yin Christina and anotherN/AYes[2002] 1 SLR(R) 326SingaporeCited regarding while a judge is not obliged to accept the opinion of an expert, even where there is no contrary opinion, such rejection must be based on sound grounds.
Supreme Leasing Sdn Bhd v Lee Gee and othersN/AYes[1989] 1 MLJ 129MalaysiaCited regarding disposing of the Equipment and thereby depriving Sea-Shore of the opportunity to “verify and confirm the full contents of the equipment stored at [the Premises]”

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Service Agreement
  • Rent Arrears
  • Conversion
  • Detinue
  • Scrap Sale
  • Relocated Equipment
  • Additional Equipment
  • Mobilisation Checklists
  • Metal Recycle Pte Ltd

15.2 Keywords

  • conversion
  • damages
  • equipment disposal
  • rent arrears
  • storage agreement

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Conversion95
Measure of Damages80
Damages80
Torts70
Breach of Contract30
Contract Law20

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Contract Law
  • Commercial Dispute
  • Bailment