Kwan Yuen Heng v. Teo Yong Soon: Appeal on Loan Recovery & Unlicensed Moneylending

Kwan Yuen Heng appealed against a judgment in favor of Teo Yong Soon for $1.621m, representing loans Teo claimed to have extended to Kwan. The Appellate Division of the High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Teo did make the loans to Kwan and was not an unlicensed moneylender. The court upheld the original judgment, ordering Kwan to pay costs to Teo.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a $1.621m loan dispute. The court upheld the judgment, finding the loans were made and the lender was not an unlicensed moneylender.

1.7 Decision Date

24 February 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Kwan Yuen Heng	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Lua Wei Liang Wilbur of Covenant Chambers LLC Zhu Yujia of Covenant Chambers LLC
Teo Yong Soon	Respondent	Individual	Judgment for Respondent	Won	Uthayasurian s/o Sidambaram of Phoenix Law Corporation Suriya Prakash Uthayasurian of Phoenix Law Corporation Cheah You Yuan of Phoenix Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Quentin Loh	Judge of the Appellate Division	No
Chua Lee Ming	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lua Wei Liang Wilbur	Covenant Chambers LLC
Zhu Yujia	Covenant Chambers LLC
Uthayasurian s/o Sidambaram	Phoenix Law Corporation
Suriya Prakash Uthayasurian	Phoenix Law Corporation
Cheah You Yuan	Phoenix Law Corporation

4. Facts

Teo claimed he made seven interest-free loans to Kwan totaling $1,621,000 between 2014 and 2017.
Kwan denied taking the loans and claimed he took interest-bearing loans from Teo.
Kwan issued six cheques to Teo totaling $1,621,000.
Teo claimed the cheques were payments for the loans, but Kwan claimed they were collateral.
Kwan claimed to have repaid $1,497,000 to Teo between July 2015 and April 2018.
Teo denied Kwan's allegations of interest-bearing loans and repayments.
Kwan's alternative defense was that Teo was an unlicensed moneylender.

5. Formal Citations

Kwan Yuen Heng v Teo Yong Soon, Civil Appeal No 85 of 2021, [2022] SGHC(A) 9

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1969-01-01	Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
2008-01-01	Teo and his wife invested $200,000 with Kwan
2014-11-13	Loan No. 1 of $500,000 made by Teo to Kwan
2015-01-16	Loan No. 2 of $400,000 made by Teo to Kwan
2015-06-01	Kwan took a loan of $250,000 from Teo
2015-06-30	Loan No. 3 of $55,000 made by Teo to Kwan
2015-07-11	Loan No. 4 of $245,000 made by Teo to Kwan
2015-10-01	Kwan took a loan of $29,800 from Teo
2015-11-01	Kwan took a loan of $300,000 from Teo
2015-12-17	Loan No. 5 of $15,000 made by Teo to Kwan
2016-09-07	Loan No. 6 of $372,000 made by Teo to Kwan
2016-11-13	Kwan gave Teo a cheque for $300,000
2017-07-18	Kwan gave Teo a cheque for $10,000
2017-07-22	Kwan gave Teo a cheque for $77,000
2017-10-12	Kwan gave Teo a cheque for $757,000
2017-10-20	Loan No. 7 of $34,000 made by Teo to Kwan
2017-11-10	Kwan gave Teo a cheque for $226,000
2017-12-10	Kwan gave Teo a cheque for $251,000
2018-04-01	Kwan paid Teo $487,000
2018-06-25	Kwan filed a police report against Teo
2019-01-01	High Court Suit No. 777 of 2019 filed
2021-01-01	Civil Appeal No 85 of 2021
2022-01-12	Hearing date
2022-02-25	Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

Burden of Proving Loans
- Outcome: The court found that the Judge applied the correct test, placing the burden on Teo to prove the loans on a balance of probabilities.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1136
Unlicensed Moneylending
- Outcome: The court found that Teo was not operating as an unlicensed moneylender.
- Category: Substantive
Evaluation of Evidence
- Outcome: The court was satisfied that the Judge's finding that Teo did make the Loans to Kwan cannot be said to be against the weight of the evidence or plainly wrong.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Judgment
Dismissal of Claim

9. Cause of Actions

Recovery of Loan
Unlicensed Moneylending

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Debt Recovery

11. Industries

Finance
Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Clarke Beryl Claire (personal representative of the estate of Eugene Francis Clarke, deceased), v SilkAir (Singapore) Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2002] 1 SLR(R) 1136	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the burden of proof is on the claimant to show that their case is more probably true than not.
Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an appellant needs to show that the trial judge’s assessment is plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.
Teo Yong Soon v Kwan Yuen Heng	High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 112	Singapore	The trial judgment being appealed against.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Moneylenders Act (Cap 188, 2010 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Loans
Interest-free
Unlicensed moneylender
Cheques
Repayments
Collateral
Balance of probabilities

15.2 Keywords

loan
moneylender
appeal
Singapore
contract
interest

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Money and moneylenders	95
Credit and Security	90
Banking and Finance	60
Banking Law	60
Debt Recovery	50
Judgments and Orders	30
Contract Law	30
Civil Practice	20
Civil Litigation	20

16. Subjects

Contract Law
Banking Law
Financial Law