HRA Corp (SG) Pte Ltd v Cheng Mun Yip Marcus: Interim Payment Application

HRA Corp (SG) Pte Ltd sued Cheng Mun Yip Marcus and others in the High Court of Singapore, seeking a declaration that the 1st Defendant holds Trust Shares Sale Proceeds on trust for the Plaintiff, or equitable compensation. The Plaintiff applied for interim payment of $3,602,200 based on alleged admissions by the 1st Defendant. The court dismissed the application, finding that the Plaintiff failed to establish grounds under Order 29 Rules 11 or 12 of the Rules of Court, and would not have exercised discretion in favor of ordering interim payment even if the requirements of the First Stage were met.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Application for interim payment. The court dismissed the application, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish grounds under Rules of Court.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
HRA Corp (SG) Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationApplication DismissedLost
Cheng Mun Yip MarcusDefendantIndividualApplication DismissedWon
DeClout LtdDefendantCorporation
Eradite International Pte LtdDefendantCorporation
Wong Kok KhunDefendantIndividual
Nah Nah Guan (Lan Lanyuan)DefendantIndividual

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Justin YeoAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. The Plaintiff sought interim payment of $3,602,200 from the 1st Defendant.
  2. The Plaintiff claimed the 1st Defendant admitted liability for at least $3,602,200.
  3. The 1st Defendant argued no admission was made, citing the Bad Debts Agreement.
  4. The Plaintiff disputed the existence of the Bad Debts Agreement.
  5. The court considered whether the Plaintiff would obtain judgment for a substantial sum.
  6. The court found the Bad Debts Agreement was expressly pleaded as a defense.
  7. The court determined the Plaintiff failed to establish grounds for interim payment.

5. Formal Citations

  1. HRA Corp (SG) Pte Ltd v Cheng Mun Yip Marcus and others, HC/S 620 of 2017, [2018] SGHCR 7

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Acclivis required funds for a business transaction.
The 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff agreed to co-invest in 2,787,516 shares of Acclivis.
The 1st Defendant signed a trust deed.
The 1st Defendant and the Plaintiff entered into the Bad Debts Agreement.
CITIC entered into a Non-Binding Letter of Intent with the 1st to 3rd Defendants.
The 1st Defendant entered into the Receivable Assignment Agreement and the Shareholder Loan Assignment and Novation Agreement.
CITIC entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with the 1st to 3rd Defendants.
The 1st Defendant entered into a Price Variation Agreement with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants and a Side Letter with CITIC.
The Plaintiff commenced the suit.
The 1st Defendant’s Defence & Counterclaim was filed.
The Plaintiff obtained an order for an interim injunction.
The Plaintiff brought the Application.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Interim Payment
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the application for interim payment.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 3 SLR(R) 1117
      • [1987] 1 WLR 480

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of Trust
  2. Order for Account
  3. Order for Payment
  4. Equitable Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duties

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
American International Assurance Co Ltd v Wong Cherng Yaw and othersHigh CourtYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 1117SingaporeCited regarding the two-stage approach to an application for interim payment.
Quality Assurance Management Asia Pte Ltd v Zhang QingCourt of AppealYes[2013] 3 SLR 631SingaporeCited for the distinction between equitable compensation and common law damages.
Shearson Lehman Brothers Inc and another v Maclaine Watson & Co Ltd and othersEnglish Court of AppealYes[1987] 1 WLR 480EnglandCited for the interpretation of Order 29 rr 11 and 12 of the Rules of Court.
Yong Kheng Leong and another v Panweld Trading Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 173SingaporeCited for the proposition that equitable compensation is a claim for damages for breach of a fiduciary duty.
Dynasty Line Ltd (in liquidation) v Sukamto Sia and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2016] 5 SLR 505SingaporeCited for the proposition that 'damages' is strictly speaking mere shorthand for equitable compensation.
Blue Sky One Ltd v Mahan AirHigh CourtYes[2010] EWHC 631England and WalesCited for the proposition that a proprietary claim for the Trust Shares Sale Proceeds cannot be set off against a monetary claim for a debt owing under the Bad Debts Agreement.
Pacific Rim Investments Pte LTd v Lam Seng TiongHigh CourtYes[1995] 2 SLR(R) 643SingaporeCited for the requirements of equitable set-off.
Main-Line Corporate Holdings Ltd v United Overseas Bank LtdCourt of AppealYes[2010] 2 SLR 986SingaporeCited regarding the objectives of interim payment and whether it is necessary to demonstrate hardship or prejudice.
American International Assurance (CA)N/AYesN/AN/ACited regarding the two-stage approach to an application for interim payment.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 29 rule 10 of the Rules of Court
Order 29 rule 11 of the Rules of Court
Order 29 rule 12 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, Rev Ed 2014)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Interim Payment
  • Trust Shares
  • Trust Deed
  • Bad Debts Agreement
  • Trust Shares Sale Proceeds
  • Admission of Liability
  • Equitable Compensation

15.2 Keywords

  • Interim Payment
  • Singapore
  • Civil Procedure
  • Rules of Court
  • Trust
  • Breach of Trust

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Interim Payments
  • Trust Law