Crest Capital v OUE Lippo Healthcare: Consequential Orders and Costs After Appeal
The Court of Appeal of Singapore heard the appeal of Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd, Crest Catalyst Equity Pte Ltd, The Enterprise Fund III Ltd, VMF3 Ltd, and Value Monetization III Ltd against OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd and IHC Medical Re Pte Ltd, concerning consequential orders and costs following a prior appeal judgment. The court dismissed the request for a consequential order to restore sums paid by VMIII to the respondents and ordered the respondents to pay VMF3 and VMIII costs fixed at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements for the appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Consequential order sought by VMF3 and VMIII dismissed. Respondents to pay VMF3 and VMIII costs fixed at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements for the appeal.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding consequential orders and costs after a partial appeal success. Court addresses reimbursement of judgment debt and cost allocation.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Value Monetization III Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | |
| The Enterprise Fund III Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| VMF3 Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | |
| Crest Catalyst Equity Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corporation Ltd) | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Partially Allowed | Partial | |
| IHC Medical Re Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Partially Allowed | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Steven Chong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The Crest Entities were found to be jointly and severally liable to the respondents for $12.6m at first instance.
- VMIII paid $10.3m to the respondents for the judgment debt and interest.
- VMF3’s and VMIII’s appeals were allowed, while the appeals of the other Crest Entities were dismissed.
- VMIII sought a consequential order for the repayment of the $10.3m.
- The $10.3m payment was made following negotiations between WongP and R&T.
- The Crest Entities relied on the same set of pleadings and evidence during the trial below.
- The respondents ceased pursuing enforcement proceedings against Crest Capital, Crest Catalyst and EFIII in reliance on the $10.3m payment.
5. Formal Citations
- Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and othersvOUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd) and another, Civil Appeal No 113 of 2020, [2021] SGCA 57
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| R&T demanded that the Crest Entities pay the judgment sum. | |
| Respondents commenced various enforcement proceedings against the Crest Entities. | |
| Tham Lijing LLC took over from WongP as solicitor for VMF3 and VMIII. | |
| WongP proposed to R&T for the judgment sum to be paid over three instalments in return for a stay of the enforcement proceedings. | |
| All the Crest Entities agreed to WongP's proposal. | |
| VMIII paid the sum of about $10.3m to the respondents for the judgment debt and the interest accruing thereon. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Tham Lijing LLC wrote to this court. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Consequential Orders
- Outcome: The court dismissed the consequential order sought by VMF3 and VMIII, holding that the sums paid by VMIII were meant to discharge the joint and several liability of all the Crest Entities.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Restitution of benefits conferred pursuant to a judgment that is subsequently reversed
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGCA 25
- Costs
- Outcome: The court upheld the costs order at first instance and ordered the respondents to pay VMF3 and VMIII costs fixed at $30,000 inclusive of disbursements for the appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Allocation of costs after partial success on appeal
- Joint and several liability for costs
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found that the respondents had been enriched to the tune of $10.3m, at VMIII’s expense, but that such enrichment was not unjust.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure of basis
- Mistaken payment
- Legal compulsion
- Change of position defence
8. Remedies Sought
- Restitution of money paid under a judgment that was subsequently reversed
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Healthcare
- Investment
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and others v OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd) and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 25 | Singapore | Refers to the Appeal Judgment which this judgment clarifies regarding consequential orders and costs. |
| Nykredit Mortgage Bank PLC v Edward Erdman Group Ltd (formerly Edward Erdman (an unlimited company)) | N/A | Yes | [1997] 1 WLR 1627 | N/A | Cited for the principle that when ordering repayment, the court is unravelling the practical consequences of orders made by the courts below and duly carried out by the unsuccessful party. |
| Pitt v Holt | UKSC | Yes | [2013] UKSC 26 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of mistake as either a mistaken conscious belief or an incorrect tacit assumption about a state of affairs. |
| Chua Teck Chew Robert v Goh Eng Wah | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 716 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of the rationale behind a Sanderson order. |
| Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe and another | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 19 | Singapore | Cited regarding the considerations for granting a Sanderson order. |
| DBS Vickers Securities (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Chin Pang Joo and another | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 248 | Singapore | Cited as an example where Sanderson orders have been imposed. |
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
- Consequential Order
- Costs Issue
- Joint and Several Liability
- Restitutionary Rule
- Unjust Enrichment
- Sanderson Order
- Attribution
15.2 Keywords
- Appeal
- Consequential Orders
- Costs
- Joint Liability
- Restitution
- Singapore
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Costs | 90 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Judgments and Orders | 60 |
| Appeal | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Restitution
- Costs