Quek Jin Oon v Goh Chin Soon: Summary Judgment & Mareva Injunction in Bills of Exchange Dispute

In Quek Jin Oon v Goh Chin Soon, the Singapore High Court addressed the plaintiff's claim for S$3 million based on five dishonoured cheques issued by the defendant. The plaintiff sought summary judgment and a Mareva injunction. The court granted summary judgment for S$2.5 million and allowed the defendant leave to defend the remaining S$500,000, conditional on providing security. The Mareva injunction application was not ordered, given the security provided. The plaintiff's claim was based on loans extended to the defendant, who argued the loans were for illegal purposes. The court found insufficient evidence to support the defendant's claims regarding the illegality of the loans.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Summary judgment granted for S$2.5m of the claim; leave to defend granted for the remaining S$500,000 conditional on security.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on summary judgment and Mareva injunction in a case involving dishonoured cheques. Summary judgment granted for S$2.5m.

1.7 Decision Date

9 November 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Goh Chin Soon	Defendant	Individual	Leave to defend granted conditionally	Partial	Choo Zheng Xi of Peter Low & Choo LLC Ng Bin Hong of Peter Low & Choo LLC
Quek Jin Oon	Plaintiff	Individual	Summary judgment granted in part	Partial	Boaz Chan of Incisive Law LLC Adrian Koh Shang Yong of Incisive Law LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Dedar Singh Gill	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Choo Zheng Xi	Peter Low & Choo LLC
Ng Bin Hong	Peter Low & Choo LLC
Boaz Chan	Incisive Law LLC
Adrian Koh Shang Yong	Incisive Law LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiff extended five loans totaling S$3m to the defendant between April and November 2019.
The loans were disbursed via cheques from the plaintiff to the defendant.
In exchange for the loans, the defendant issued five post-dated cheques to the plaintiff.
The defendant's cheques were dishonoured upon presentation.
The plaintiff commenced legal action to recover the S$3m.
The defendant claimed the loans were for illegal purposes, including funding mediation and arbitration proceedings.
The defendant argued the plaintiff was acting as an unlicensed moneylender.

5. Formal Citations

Quek Jin Oon v Goh Chin Soon, Suit No 17 of 2020(Registrar’s Appeal No 119 of 2020)(Summons No 1299 of 2020), [2020] SGHC 246

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2019-04-01	First loan of S$500,000 disbursed by plaintiff to defendant.
2019-05-30	Second loan of S$1,000,000 disbursed by plaintiff to defendant.
2019-07-11	Third loan of S$500,000 disbursed by plaintiff to defendant.
2019-08-21	Fourth loan of S$500,000 disbursed by plaintiff to defendant.
2019-08-31	Defendant's first, second, and third cheques dated.
2019-10-31	Defendant's fourth cheque dated.
2019-11-27	Fifth loan of S$500,000 disbursed by plaintiff to defendant.
2019-11-30	Defendant's fifth cheque dated.
2019-12-23	Plaintiff presented defendant’s cheques for payment.
2019-12-24	All five cheques were dishonoured.
2020-01-02	Plaintiff's counsel informed defendant of dishonoured cheques.
2020-01-07	Plaintiff commenced Suit against defendant.
2020-03-18	Plaintiff filed application for interim Mareva injunction.
2020-03-23	First hearing of SUM 1299.
2020-06-15	Assistant Registrar granted plaintiff’s application for summary judgment.
2020-08-04	Hearing for RA 119 and SUM 1299; summary judgment granted for S$2.5m; leave to defend granted for remaining S$500,000 conditional on security.
2020-09-24	Final judgment entered for plaintiff in respect of the Remaining Claim.

7. Legal Issues

Summary Judgment
- Outcome: Summary judgment granted for S$2.5m of the claim; leave to defend granted for the remaining S$500,000 conditional on security.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 1 SLR 325
  - [1998] 1 SLR(R) 53
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 856
  - [2018] 4 SLR 1
  - [1992] 1 MLJ 400
Mareva Injunction
- Outcome: No order made on the application for a Mareva injunction.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2015] 5 SLR 558
  - [2018] 2 SLR 159
  - [2019] EWCA Civ 2203
  - [2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm)
  - [2003] EWCA Civ 1272
  - [1979] QB 645
  - [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 600
  - [2019] 3 All ER 979
  - [2017] UKSC 80
  - [2018] UKSC 34
  - [2020] SGHC 157
  - [2003] 1 SLR(R) 157
Illegality of Loan Agreements
- Outcome: Court found insufficient evidence to support the defendant's claims regarding the illegality of the loans for the S$2.5m claim. The Illegal Litigation Funding Defence raised triable issues for the Remaining Claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Illegal third-party litigation funding
  - Unlicensed moneylending
- Related Cases:
  - [2018] 1 SLR 363
  - [1997] 1 SLR(R) 775
  - [2014] 3 SLR 609
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 989
Dishonoured Cheques
- Outcome: Plaintiff entitled to liquidated damages of S$3m, being the total amount of the defendant’s cheques.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1992] 1 SLR(R) 654
  - [1969] 1 WLR 357
  - [2017] SGHC 58
Condition Precedent
- Outcome: Court found that the defendant's delivery of the defendant's cheques to the plaintiff was unconditional.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2017] SGHC 58

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary damages
Interest
Mareva injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of contract
Recovery of debt

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Banking Litigation
Injunctions

11. Industries

Banking
Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd V Matsumura Akihiko	High Court	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 325	Singapore	Cited for the legal principles governing the grant of summary judgment under Order 14 of the Rules of Court.
Prosperous Credit Pte Ltd v Gen Hwa Franchise International Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR(R) 53	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court will not grant leave to defend if the defendant provides a mere assertion in an affidavit.
Abdul Salam Asanaru Pillai (trading as South Kerala Cashew Exporters) v Nomanbhoy & Sons Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 856	Singapore	Cited for the principle that affidavits in summary judgment proceedings are not to be accepted at face value without rational consideration.
B2C2 Ltd v Quoine Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 4 SLR 1	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the defendant's position must be articulated with sufficient particularity and supported by cogent evidence.
Bank Negara Malaysia v Mohd Ismail	Unknown	Yes	[1992] 1 MLJ 400	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the court will not grant leave to defend if assertions in the affidavit are equivocal or inconsistent.
Wong Fook Heng v Amixco Asia Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 654	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a bill of exchange constitutes a separate contract and creates independent obligations.
Fielding & Platt Ltd v Selim Najjar	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1969] 1 WLR 357	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a bill of exchange is to be treated as cash and honoured unless there is good reason to the contrary.
Millennium Commodity Trading Ltd v BS Tech Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 58	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an application for summary judgment on a dishonoured cheque will succeed unless the defendant raises an arguable case of fraud, illegality, or failure of consideration.
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 borrower bears the burden of proving that the lender is not an 'excluded moneylender' under the Moneylenders Act.
Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 363	Singapore	Cited for the principle that contracts prejudicial to the administration of justice, including those savouring of maintenance and champerty, are illegal and unenforceable.
Lim Lie Hoa v Ong Jane Rebecca	High Court	Yes	[1997] 1 SLR(R) 775	Singapore	Cited for the definitions of maintenance and champerty.
Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 609	Singapore	Cited for the principle that contracts entered into for an illegal purpose are subject to a proportionality analysis to determine enforceability.
Otech Pakistan Pvt Ltd v Clough Engineering Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 989	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the law of champerty applies to arbitration proceedings.
Wee Cheng Swee Henry v Jo Baby Kartika Polim	High Court	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 250	Singapore	Cited for the legal principles on whether conditional or unconditional leave to defend should be granted.
Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar v Accent Delight International Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 558	Singapore	Cited for the requirements for the grant of a Mareva injunction, including the 'good arguable case' standard.
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 159	Singapore	Cited for the test of whether there is a real risk that a judgment may not be satisfied because of a risk of unjustified dealings with assets.
Lakatamia Shipping Company Limited v Toshiko Morimoto	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] EWCA Civ 2203	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the risk of dissipation must be established by solid evidence and that a plaintiff need only show a plausible evidential basis sufficient to establish a good arguable case that there is a risk of dissipation.
Fundo Soberano de Angola v dos Santos	High Court of Justice	Yes	[2018] EWHC 2199 (Comm)	England and Wales	Cited for the key principles applicable to the question of risk of dissipation.
Thane Investments Ltd v Tomlinson (No 1)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] EWCA Civ 1272	England and Wales	Cited for the requirements before making a worldwide freezing order.
Third Chandris Shipping Corp v. Unimarine SA	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	[1979] QB 645	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an applicant for a freezing order does not need to establish the existence of a risk of dissipation on the balance of probabilities.
Ninemia Maritime Corp v Trave Schiffahrtsgesellschaft GmbH (The Niedersachsen)	Unknown	Yes	[1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 600	Unknown	Cited for the meaning of the 'good arguable case' test.
Kaefer v. AMS	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 3 All ER 979	England and Wales	Cited for the comprehensive review of the 'good arguable case' test.
Brownlie v. Four Seasons Holdings	Supreme Court	Yes	[2017] UKSC 80	United Kingdom	Cited in the context of jurisdictional gateways.
Goldman Sachs International v. Novo Banco SA	Supreme Court	Yes	[2018] UKSC 34	United Kingdom	Cited in the context of jurisdictional gateways.
TYN Investment Group Pte Ltd v ERC Holdings Pte Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2020] SGHC 157	Singapore	Cited for the opinion that there is no material difference between 'solid evidence' and 'plausible evidential basis'.
Guan Chong Cocoa Manufacturer Sdn Bhd v Pratiwi Shipping SA	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 1 SLR(R) 157	Singapore	Cited for the factors the court considers relevant in assessing whether there is a real risk of dissipation.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Dishonoured cheques
Summary judgment
Mareva injunction
Illegal litigation funding
Unlicensed moneylender
Condition precedent
Bills of exchange
Loan agreement
Dissipation of assets
Security
Banker's guarantee

15.2 Keywords

cheque
injunction
loan
summary judgment
moneylender
arbitration
mediation

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Summary Judgement	80
Mareva Injunctions	80
Civil Procedure	70
Bills of Exchange	70
Contract Law	60
Injunctions	60
Banking and Finance	30

16. Subjects

Bills of Exchange
Civil Procedure
Banking
Contract Law
Injunctions