Aries Telecoms v ViewQwest: Conversion Claim & Damages Assessment

In a suit before the High Court of Singapore, Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd sued ViewQwest Pte Ltd for conversion of information technology equipment. The main action commenced on 26 September 2013. After ViewQwest consented to an interlocutory judgment on 11 October 2016, the court, Woo Bih Li J, assessed damages. The court determined the conversion period, awarded ordinary damages of US$61,521.43 based on an agreed rental value, and granted punitive damages of S$60,000 due to ViewQwest's outrageous conduct in withholding the equipment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Aries Telecoms sues ViewQwest for conversion of IT equipment. The court assesses damages, awarding ordinary and punitive damages to Aries.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Aries Telecoms (M) BerhadPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
ViewQwest Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment Against DefendantLost
Fiberail Sdn BhdThird PartyCorporationThird party action discontinuedNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Yeo Siew Chye TroyChye Legal Practice
Ong Pang MengC K Tan & Partners
Sze Kian Chuan JohnJoseph Tan Jude Benny LLP
Loh Hui Chen NicolaJoseph Tan Jude Benny LLP

4. Facts

  1. Aries claimed ViewQwest converted IT equipment by refusing its return.
  2. ViewQwest consented to interlocutory judgment, damages to be assessed.
  3. Aries sought ordinary, disgorgement of profits, and exemplary damages.
  4. ViewQwest claimed equipment was supplied under Fiberail contract.
  5. BTI informed ViewQwest that Aries owned the equipment.
  6. ViewQwest continued to use the equipment after being informed of Aries' ownership.
  7. ViewQwest offered to return the equipment subject to conditions.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd, Suit No 860 of 2013 (Assessment of Damages No 16 of 2018), [2019] SGHC 206

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lawsuit filed
Equipment returned to Aries
Interlocutory judgment granted
Assessment of Damages trial began
Judgment reserved
First purchase order issued
Second purchase order issued
Third purchase order issued
Contract termination notice given by ViewQwest
Contract terminated
Aries requests return of equipment
ViewQwest rejects Aries' request
BTI confirms Aries' ownership to ViewQwest
Fiberail states equipment does not belong to them
Anton Piller order granted
ViewQwest premises searched
Fiberail offers to purchase equipment from Aries
ViewQwest commences third party action against Fiberail
Migration completed
Fiberail files initial defence
ViewQwest intends to settle suit
ViewQwest offers to return equipment
Aries agrees to accept return of equipment in principle
ViewQwest discontinues third party action
Final arrangements made for collection of equipment
Court decides Aries not entitled to account of profits

7. Legal Issues

  1. Conversion
    • Outcome: The court found that ViewQwest's detention of the equipment and refusal to return it amounted to a converting of Aries’ equipment to its own use.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Detention of chattel
      • Denial of title
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101
      • [1998] 2 SLR(R) 1010
      • [1911] 2 KB 1031
  2. Damages Assessment
    • Outcome: The court awarded ordinary damages based on the rental value of the equipment and punitive damages due to the defendant's outrageous conduct.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Ordinary damages
      • Punitive damages
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 1 SLR 918
  3. Punitive Damages
    • Outcome: The court awarded punitive damages, finding that ViewQwest's cumulative actions amounted to a sustained and intentional withholding of the DWDM-1 equipment that was sufficiently outrageous.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Outrageous conduct
      • Deterrence
      • Condemnation
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] 1 SLR 918

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Ordinary Damages
  2. Punitive Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Conversion

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Telecommunications

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore LtdCourt of AppealYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101SingaporeCited for the principle that an act of conversion occurs when there is unauthorised dealing with the claimant’s chattel so as to question or deny his title to it.
Chartered Electronics Industries Pte Ltd v Comtech IT Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1998] 2 SLR(R) 1010SingaporeCited for the principle that the usual mode of proof of conversion by detention is to show that the defendant in possession of the goods refused to surrender it on demand.
Clayton v Le RoyKing's BenchYes[1911] 2 KB 1031England and WalesCited for the principle that the mere retention of another’s property on its own is not conversion.
Schwarzchild v Harrods LtdQueen's Bench DivisionNo[2008] EWHC 521 (QB)England and WalesCited to compare the demand in the present case with a demand that was considered equivocal.
Antariksa Logistics Pte Ltd and others v McTrans Cargo (S) Pte LtdHigh CourtNo[2012] 4 SLR 250SingaporeCited to compare the demand in the present case with a demand that was considered unequivocal.
Metall Market OOO v Vitorio Shipping Co LtdCourt of AppealNo[2014] 2 WLR 979England and WalesCited for the principle that where there are physical difficulties with the delivery of converted goods, a pro tanto defence may be raised against the requirement that delivery be immediate.
Capital Finance Company Ltd v BrayCourt of AppealYes[1964] 1 WLR 323England and WalesCited for the principle that where conversion occurs, the defendant’s obligation is only to allow the claimant to collect the converted chattel; he is not bound, save by contract, to take the chattel to the owner.
Comtech IT Pte Ltd v Chartered Electronics Industries Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1997] SGHC 277SingaporeCited for the principle that the defendant's refusal to return the chattel is in itself not conversion but only evidence of conversion.
ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services)Court of AppealNo[2013] 4 SLR 1317SingaporeCited for the principle that user damages are assessed by reference to the fee that the defendant would have reasonably had to pay for a licence by the plaintiff to act.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appealCourt of AppealNo[2018] 2 SLR 655SingaporeCited for the principle that the juridical basis of the user principle is compensatory.
ACB v Thomson Medical Pte Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2017] 1 SLR 918SingaporeCited for the principle that punitive damages may be awarded in tort where the totality of the defendant’s conduct is so outrageous that it warrants punishment, deterrence, and condemnation.
A v BottrillPrivy Council (UK)No[2003] 1 AC 449New ZealandCited as instructive in determining whether conduct crossed the threshold of outrageousness.
AXA Insurance UK plc v Financial Claims Solutions UK Limited and othersCourt of AppealYes[2018] EWCA Civ 1330England and WalesCited as an example of a case where punitive damages were awarded for deceit and unlawful means conspiracy.
Ramzan v Brookwide LtdCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 All ER 903England and WalesCited as an example of a case where punitive damages were awarded for trespass to land.
Ramzan v Brookwide LtdHigh CourtNo[2011] 2 All ER 38England and WalesCited as an example of a case where punitive damages were awarded for trespass to land.
Royal Bank of Canada v W Got & Associates Electric LtdSupreme CourtYes[1999] 3 SCR 408CanadaCited as an example of a case where exemplary damages were awarded for breach of contract and conversion of assets.
King v GrossAlberta Provincial CourtYes[2008] AJ No 333CanadaCited as an example of a case where punitive damages were awarded against a plaintiff who had found and kept a breeder’s dog.
Klewchuk v SwitzerAlberta Court of AppealNo[2003] AJ No 785CanadaCited as an example of a case where an appeal against an award of punitive damages was allowed where one business partner converted the property of another.
2105582 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Performance Plus Golf Academy) v. 375445 Ontario Ltd. (c.o.b. Hydeaway Golf Club)Ontario Court of AppealNo[2017] OJ No 6526CanadaCited as an example of a case where an appeal against exemplary damages was allowed where the damages awarded amounted to double recovery.
Jamieson's Tow & Salvage Ltd v MurrayHigh Court of WellingtonYes[1984] 2 NZLR 144New ZealandCited as an example of a case where exemplary damages were awarded for conversion of the respondents’ car.
McBride Street Cars Ltd v RapanaHigh Court of DunedinYes[2006] NZAR 697New ZealandCited as an example of a case where exemplary damages were awarded for trespass.
Philip Moore & Company Ltd v Anne Josephine SurridgeHigh Court of WellingtonYes[2018] NZHC 562New ZealandCited as an example of a case where exemplary damages were awarded for intentional interference with a business by unlawful means.
Uzinterimpex JSC v Standard Bank plcCourt of AppealYes[2008] EWCA Civ 918England and WalesCited for the principle that a claimant in conversion has a duty to minimise his losses.
Rookes v BarnardHouse of LordsYes[1964] AC 1129United KingdomCited for considerations that are relevant to awards of exemplary damages.
Loudon v RyderCourt of AppealNo[1953] 2 QB 202England and WalesCited for the principle that a defendant’s apology in the witness box may well make a difference in his favour.
Cassell & Co Ltd v Broome and anotherHouse of LordsYes[1972] 2 WLR 645United KingdomCited for the principle that if the sum awarded in compensation is insufficient as a punishment, the tribunal is to add to it enough to bring it up to a sum sufficient as punishment.
McDermott v WallaceCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 NZLR 661New ZealandCited for principles relating to the assessment of quantum of exemplary damages.
Drane v Evangelou and othersCourt of AppealYes[1978] 1 WLR 455England and WalesCited as an example of a case where exemplary damages were awarded for invasion of property.
Design Progression Ltd v Thurloe Properties LtdCourt of AppealYes[2005] 1 WLR 1England and WalesCited as an example of a case where exemplary damages were awarded for breach of duty under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1988.
Daley v MahmoodUnknownYes[2006] 1 P & CR DG10England and WalesCited as an example of a case where exemplary damages were awarded for harassment and unlawful eviction.
Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd (Fiberail Sdn Bhd, third party)High CourtNo[2018] 3 SLR 196SingaporeCited for the decision that Aries was not entitled to claim an account of profits from ViewQwest.
Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd (Fiberail Sdn Bhd, third party)High CourtNo[2017] 4 SLR 728SingaporeCited for the decision that Aries did not require leave to appeal.
Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte LtdCourt of AppealNo[2018] 1 SLR 108SingaporeCited for the holding that the determination in the 7 February 2017 order had involved factual determinations that were not appropriate in an Order 14 rule 12 application.
Marco Polo Shipping Co Pte Ltd v Fairmacs Shipping & Transport Services Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 541SingaporeCited for the principle that the object of an award of damages for conversion is to compensate the plaintiff for the damage it has suffered.

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

  • Conversion
  • Damages
  • Punitive Damages
  • Interlocutory Judgment
  • DWDM-1 equipment
  • Fiber optic network
  • IPLC services
  • Anton Piller order
  • Migration
  • Mitigation

15.2 Keywords

  • conversion
  • damages
  • telecommunications
  • singapore
  • aries telecoms
  • viewqwest
  • fiberail

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Conversion90
Assessment of Damages85
Damages80
Torts70
Breach of Contract60
Remedies50
Contract Law50
User Principle40
Civil Procedure40
Commercial Disputes40
Evidence30
Misrepresentation30
Agency Law20
Unjust Enrichment20
Estoppel20

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Civil Litigation
  • Damages Assessment