Seah Han v. Onwards Media Group: Commission Dispute over HBO Asia Contract

In Seah Han v. Onwards Media Group Pte Ltd, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding a commission dispute. Seah Han, the plaintiff, claimed that Onwards Media Group, the defendant, owed him commission for securing a contract with HBO Asia. The court, presided over by Philip Jeyaretnam JC, ruled in favor of Seah Han, finding that Onwards Media Group had agreed to pay a 10% commission on the entire HBO Asia contract value and had breached that agreement.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the 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

A commission dispute arose between Seah Han and Onwards Media Group over an HBO Asia contract. The court ruled in favor of Seah Han, finding that Onwards Media breached their agreement.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Seah HanPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Onwards Media Group Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Philip JeyaretnamJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Rajwin Singh SandhuRajwin & Yong LLP
Nicholas Jeyaraj s/o NarayananNicholas & Tan Partnership LLP
Chik Hui Rong, CrystalNicholas & Tan Partnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Seah and Mr. Hoong orally agreed to commission terms.
  2. Mr. Seah introduced Onwards Media to HBO Asia.
  3. HBO Asia issued a purchase order totaling US$3,798,500 to Onwards Media.
  4. Mr. Seah claimed the commission was agreed at 10% of the whole contract value.
  5. Onwards Media contended the commission was agreed at 3% of the development amount only.
  6. Onwards Media paid Mr. Seah a total of S$40,000.
  7. Mr. Seah sent Mr. Hoong a WhatsApp message stating that he was getting 10% commission from HBO contract.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Seah Han v Onwards Media Group Pte Ltd, Suit No 935 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 179

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Mr. Seah was given an independent role to introduce business to Onwards Media.
Mr. Seah emailed Mr. Lee to see if Onwards Media could have an exploratory discussion on opportunities with HBO Asia.
Mr. Seah had lunch with Mr. Lee.
Private chats between Mr. Seah and Mr. Lee.
Private chats between Mr. Seah and Mr. Lee.
Purchase order from HBO Asia.
Onwards Media learned of its success in securing the order.
Representatives from HBO Asia and Onwards Media met to kick off the project.
Mr. Seah met Mr. Hoong in his office and the commission amount was agreed.
Mr. Seah sent Mr. Hoong a WhatsApp message confirming the commission agreement.
Onwards Media paid Mr. Seah S$20,000.
Onwards Media paid Mr. Seah S$20,000.
Master Service Agreement between HBO Asia and Onwards Media.
Mr. Seah made a demand for payment in the sum of S$419,229.50.
Onwards Media asserted that the commission payable was only US$39,000, and tendered payment by cheque of S$13,623.48.
Mr. Seah's solicitors responded by letter, noting that Mr. Seah would bank in the cheque as part-payment of what he claimed.
Proceedings were commenced.
The claim against Mr. Hoong was discontinued.
Trial began.
Trial continued.
Judgment reserved.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that Onwards Media breached the contract by failing to pay the agreed-upon commission.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to pay commission
      • Repudiation of contract
  2. Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court rejected Onwards Media's argument that Mr. Seah was estopped from denying Onwards Media's position.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Prematurity of Claim
    • Outcome: The court found that the claim was not premature because Onwards Media had renounced the agreement.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages
  2. Interest
  3. Costs

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Information Technology
  • Media
  • Public Relations

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Felthouse v BindleyCourt of Common PleasYes(1862) 142 ER 1037England and WalesCited for the proposition that silence is not sufficient to amount to an acceptance of an offer.
Day, Ashley Francis v Yeo Chin Huat Anthony and othersSingapore High CourtYes[2020] 5 SLR 514SingaporeApplied Felthouse v Bindley for the proposition that silence is not sufficient to amount to an acceptance of an offer.
Eshelby v Federated European Bank, LtdKing's Bench DivisionYes[1932] 1 KB 254England and WalesCited for the proposition that a cause of action must be established as at the date when proceedings are instituted.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Commission
  • HBO Asia
  • Contract Value
  • Development Amount
  • Maintenance Amount
  • Purchase Order
  • WhatsApp Message
  • Estoppel
  • Prematurity

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • commission
  • hbo asia
  • onwards media
  • seah han
  • breach of contract

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contractual terms95
Contract Law90
Breach of Contract75
Estoppel50
Damages40
Civil Procedure30
Evidence30

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Commission Agreement