Tamar Perry v Bonnet Esculier: Interpleader, Striking Out, Pleadings Amendment in Offshore Case
In Tamar Perry and Solid Fund Private Foundation v Bonnet Esculier Servane Michele Thais and Jacques Henri Georges Esculier, the Singapore International Commercial Court addressed summonses related to interpleader proceedings initiated by DBS Bank concerning disputed funds. The plaintiffs sought to amend their claim, while the defendants sought to strike out the unjust enrichment claim. The court struck out the unjust enrichment claim, denied leave to amend the writ and statement of claim in certain respects, and designated the case as an offshore case.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
Application to strike out the unjust enrichment claim succeeded. Leave to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim was not granted in certain respects. The case was designated as an Offshore case.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court addresses interpleader proceedings, striking out claims, and pleading amendments in a dispute over funds held in Singapore.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tamar Perry | Plaintiff | Individual | Application to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim was not granted in certain respects | Partial | Yee Mun Howe Gerald, Boey Swee Siang, Jonathan Lim Shi Cao |
| Solid Fund Private Foundation | Plaintiff | Trust | Application to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim was not granted in certain respects | Partial | Yee Mun Howe Gerald, Boey Swee Siang, Jonathan Lim Shi Cao |
| Bonnet Esculier Servane Michele Thais | Defendant | Individual | Claim for unjust enrichment struck out | Won | Colin Liew, Kam Su Cheun Aurill, Valerie Thio Shu Jun, Lim Rui Hsien Esther |
| Jacques Henri Georges Esculier | Defendant | Individual | Claim for unjust enrichment struck out | Won | Colin Liew, Kam Su Cheun Aurill, Valerie Thio Shu Jun, Lim Rui Hsien Esther |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Simon Thorley | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Yee Mun Howe Gerald | Premier Law LLC |
| Boey Swee Siang | Premier Law LLC |
| Jonathan Lim Shi Cao | Premier Law LLC |
| Colin Liew | Essex Court Chambers Duxton (Singapore Practice Group) |
| Kam Su Cheun Aurill | Legal Clinic LLC |
| Valerie Thio Shu Jun | Legal Clinic LLC |
| Lim Rui Hsien Esther | Legal Clinic LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs and Defendants were investors in funds administered by Lexinta.
- Lexinta appears to have been running a fraudulent Ponzi scheme.
- Defendants were early investors and received approximately US$10 million from Lexinta.
- Plaintiffs deposited over US$24 million with Lexinta.
- Plaintiffs claim the funds paid to Defendants were from their deposits.
- DBS Bank froze the Singapore bank account holding the disputed monies due to conflicting claims.
- DBS initiated interpleader proceedings to determine ownership of the disputed monies.
5. Formal Citations
- Perry, Tamar and another v Esculier, Bonnet Servane Michele Thais and another, Suit No 4 of 2020, [2020] SGHC(I) 22
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendants invested in funds administered by Lexinta. | |
| Agreed date for return of investment fruits. | |
| Sums were credited by Lexinta to the first Defendant’s bank account with DBS Bank Ltd. | |
| Sums were credited by Lexinta to the first Defendant’s bank account with DBS Bank Ltd. | |
| Plaintiffs deposited in excess of US$24 million with Lexinta. | |
| Plaintiffs deposited in excess of US$24 million with Lexinta. | |
| Plaintiffs obtained ex parte discovery orders from the Hong Kong courts against DBS. | |
| Plaintiffs' lawyers demanded that DBS transfer the Disputed Monies to her. | |
| Badilla was arrested in Switzerland. | |
| Defendants became aware that the funds in the DBS Singapore account had been frozen. | |
| DBS commenced interpleader proceedings in the Singapore High Court. | |
| OS 1016 first came on for hearing before Judicial Commissioner Dedar Singh Gill. | |
| Order made pursuant to O 17 r 5(1)(b) ROC. | |
| TP should file a Statement of Claim in the Further Proceedings. | |
| OS returned before Gill JC. | |
| Writ in the new action was issued in the High Court (HC/S 259/2020). | |
| Amended Statement of Claim was served. | |
| Defence and Counterclaim of both Defendants was served. | |
| HC/S 259/2020 was transferred to this court. | |
| Defendants notified the Plaintiffs that they proposed seeking leave to amend the Defence and Counterclaim. | |
| Plaintiffs notified the Defendants that they proposed seeking leave to amend the Statement of Claim. | |
| Plaintiffs informed the Defendants of their intention to seek leave to join one of the Lexinta group of companies, Lexinta Group Ltd, a Hong Kong company as a Defendant in the action. | |
| Plaintiffs brought SIC/SUM 55/2020 seeking leave to amend the Writ and Statement of Claim. | |
| Defendants issued SIC/SUM 62/2020 seeking to strike out the unjust enrichment claim. | |
| Plaintiffs issued SIC/SUM 64/2020 relating to the Offshore case issue. | |
| Summonses were heard together at a hearing. | |
| Judgment was delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Interpleader
- Outcome: The court addressed the scope and requirements of interpleader proceedings, emphasizing their limited nature and statutory basis.
- Category: Procedural
- Striking Out
- Outcome: The court struck out the claim for unjust enrichment, finding it an abuse of the interpleader process to bring personal claims in such proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court denied leave to amend the writ and statement of claim to add a party and a claim under the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act, finding them inappropriate for interpleader proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Offshore Case Designation
- Outcome: The court designated the case as an offshore case, considering the lack of substantial connection to Singapore beyond the location of the disputed funds.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Determination of ownership of disputed monies
- Restitution
9. Cause of Actions
- Proprietary Claim
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| De La Rue v Hernu, Peron & Stockwell, Limited | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1936] 2 KB 164 | England and Wales | Considered the status of an action commenced as part of interpleader proceedings, holding that it is a proprietary dispute necessary to resolve the interpleader proceedings. |
| Precious Shipping Public Co Ltd and others v OW Bunker Far East (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 1229 | Singapore | Considered the scope of interpleader proceedings, emphasizing that the function of interpleader proceedings is to assist the custodian to identify the person entitled to the property. |
| Commonwealth of Australia v Peacekeeper International FZC UAE | High Court of England and Wales | Yes | [2008] EWHC 1220 | England and Wales | Reasoning that interpleader proceedings provide a simple mechanism for the property holder to get the protection of the court from competing claimants. |
| Regal Castings Ltd v Lightbody | Supreme Court of New Zealand | Yes | [2008] NZSC 87 | New Zealand | Reasoning that a claim under s 73B of the CLPA is a personal claim and therefore cannot be brought in interpleader proceedings. |
| Teras Offshore Pte Ltd v Teras Cargo Transport (America) LLC | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 75 | Singapore | The question of whether a case is an Offshore case has to be determined by reference to all the surrounding circumstances of the action in question. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 3 Rule 4 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 11 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(i) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 15 Rule 6(2)(b)(ii) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 17 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 17 Rule 1 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 17 Rule 5(1)(b) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 18 Rule 19 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 18 Rule 20(1)(a) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 56 Rule 2 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 110 Rule 1(1) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 110 Rule 1(2)(f) of the Rules of Court |
| Order 110 Rule 36 of the Rules of Court |
| Order 110 Rule 36(2) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Interpleader
- Disputed Monies
- Offshore Case
- Unjust Enrichment
- Ponzi Scheme
- Lexinta
- Proprietary Claim
15.2 Keywords
- Interpleader
- Offshore case
- Singapore International Commercial Court
- Striking out
- Amendment
- Pleadings
- Rules of Court
- Unjust enrichment
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Interpleader
- Offshore Case
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Striking Out
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Interpleader
- Offshore Case