Wong Kee Wah v Sng Boon Chye: Interpretation of Contract for Commission Payments

In Wong Kee Wah v Sng Boon Chye, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute over commission payments. Wong Kee Wah, the plaintiff, sued Sng Boon Chye, the defendant, for school fees collected, advance commission, and a loan. Sng Boon Chye counterclaimed for unpaid commission. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, found that the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the parties did not extend to the courses in dispute and ruled that Wong Kee Wah was liable to pay Sng Boon Chye commission, less set-offs for school fees, advance commission, and the loan. The court ordered Wong Kee Wah to pay Sng Boon Chye $417,426.50.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Defendant on Counterclaim, Plaintiff to pay Defendant $417,426.50 after set-off

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The case concerns a dispute over commission payments between Wong Kee Wah and Sng Boon Chye. The court found that a prior MOU did not govern subsequent work and ruled in favor of Sng Boon Chye.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Wong Kee WahPlaintiffIndividualCounterclaim AllowedLostLim Junchen Xavier, Vernon Bonifac Fernandez
Sng Boon ChyeDefendantIndividualCounterclaim AllowedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Lim Junchen XavierYeo & Associates LLC
Vernon Bonifac FernandezYeo & Associates LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff is the sole proprietor of The Education Future Hub (TEFH).
  2. The defendant is a sub-contractor of the plaintiff who markets selected courses from Approved Training Organizations (ATOs).
  3. The plaintiff and defendant signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) on 1 January 2019.
  4. The defendant marketed courses from CAA, TLI and BITC which were not expressly provided for in the 2019 MOU.
  5. The plaintiff claims against the defendant for school fees collected, advance commission paid, and a loan extended.
  6. The defendant counterclaims against the plaintiff for commission for promoting CAA, TLI and BITC courses.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wong Kee Wah (trading as The Education Future Hub) v Sng Boon Chye, Suit No 1062 of 2020, [2022] SGHC 95

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff and defendant signed a Memorandum of Understanding
Plaintiff transferred $10,000 to defendant as a loan
Plaintiff transferred $15,298.55 to defendant as advance commission
Plaintiff requested defendant to transfer all school fees collected
Trial began
Trial concluded
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Interpretation of Contract
    • Outcome: The court held that the 2019 MOU did not apply to the defendant’s work in promoting CAA, TLI and BITC courses.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Entitlement to Commission
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant was entitled to commission for his work in promoting CAA, TLI and BITC courses.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Right of Set-Off
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no binding agreement between the parties that conferred the defendant a contractual right of set-off.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Education

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

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

  • Memorandum of Understanding
  • Approved Training Organizations
  • Commission
  • Disbursement of fund
  • Marketing guidelines
  • School fees
  • Set-off

15.2 Keywords

  • Contract
  • Commission
  • Education
  • MOU
  • Singapore

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Commission Payments

17. Areas of Law

  • Contract Law
  • Interpretation of Contract