Ong Lu Ling v Tan Ho Seng: Unjust Enrichment Claim Dismissed
In Ong Lu Ling v Tan Ho Seng, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Ong Lu Ling's claim of unjust enrichment against Tan Ho Seng. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, found that Ong Lu Ling did not come to the court with clean hands due to her involvement in dubious transactions and her role as a nominee for Ah Kee. The court dismissed the action and ordered each party to bear their own costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Action dismissed and each party is to pay his own costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ong Lu Ling's unjust enrichment claim against Tan Ho Seng was dismissed due to unclean hands, with the court finding dubious transactions.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Lu Ling | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Ho Seng | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- ELR Property Pte Ltd contracted to buy two commercial properties from Jerry Investments Pte Ltd.
- ELR needed $600,000 for the initial deposit but did not have the money.
- Ong Lu Ling lent $600,000 to Tan Ho Seng and his relatives.
- Ong Lu Ling was a director of Jerry Investments Pte Ltd.
- ELR was owned by Tan Ho Seng’s brother and sister-in-law.
- Jerry Investments Pte Ltd purchased the properties from MLC Barging Pte Ltd.
- Tan Ho Seng and his wife were the directors of MLC Barging Pte Ltd.
5. Formal Citations
- Ong Lu Ling v Tan Ho Seng, Suit No 341 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 65
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| ELR Property Pte Ltd contracted to buy two commercial properties from Jerry Investments Pte Ltd. | |
| Ong Lu Ling lent $600,000 to Tan Ho Seng and his relatives. | |
| Judicial Commissioner Aedit Abdullah dismissed ELR’s prayer for specific performance but directed Jerry Investments to return the deposit of $600,000 to ELR. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Counsel directed to file and exchange closing submissions. | |
| Reply submissions were to be filed. | |
| Case adjourned for decision or directions. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court did not grant the plaintiff's prayer for a refund of $600,000, finding that the plaintiff did not come to the court with clean hands.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Refund of $600,000
9. Cause of Actions
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
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
- Unjust enrichment
- Nominee
- Clean hands
- Dubious transactions
15.2 Keywords
- Unjust enrichment
- Restitution
- Singapore
- High Court
- Commercial property
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Unjust Enrichment | 90 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Civil Procedure | 20 |
| Company Law | 15 |
| Estoppel | 10 |
16. Subjects
- Restitution
- Contract Law