Value Monetization III Ltd v Lim Beng Choo: Contribution Claims & Limitation Act

In Value Monetization III Ltd v Lim Beng Choo, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Ms. Lim Beng Choo's appeals against the decision to strike out her third-party statements of claim in two originating claims. The claims sought contribution from third parties related to a prior lawsuit, HC/S 441/2016. The court found the contribution claims to be time-barred under the Limitation Act. The court also addressed arguments regarding res judicata and the proper procedure for claiming contribution.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed appeals against striking out third-party claims for contribution, finding them time-barred under the Limitation Act.

1.7 Decision Date

26 October 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Value Monetization III Ltd	Respondent, Claimant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Yeoh Kar Hoe of David Lim & Partners LLP Ng Wei Jin of David Lim & Partners LLP Geraldine Zhang Fang of David Lim & Partners LLP
Lim Beng Choo	Appellant, Defendant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Goh Kok Leong of Ang & Partners Fu Xiangming Max of Ang & Partners Navin Kumar s/o Tamil Selvan of Ang & Partners
The Enterprise Fund III Ltd	Respondent, Claimant, Third Party	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Yeoh Kar Hoe of David Lim & Partners LLP Ng Wei Jin of David Lim & Partners LLP Geraldine Zhang Fang of David Lim & Partners LLP
Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd	Respondent, Third Party	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Won	Pillai Pradeep G of PRP Law LLC Lin Shuling Joycelyn of PRP Law LLC Wong Yong Min of PRP Law LLC
Crest Catalyst Equity Pte Ltd (now known as Crest Capital Asia Fund Mgmt Pte Ltd)	Respondent, Third Party	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Won	Pillai Pradeep G of PRP Law LLC Lin Shuling Joycelyn of PRP Law LLC Wong Yong Min of PRP Law LLC
Tan Yang Hwee	Respondent, Third Party	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Won
Chan Pee Teck Peter	Respondent, Third Party	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Won	Pillai Pradeep G of PRP Law LLC Lin Shuling Joycelyn of PRP Law LLC Wong Yong Min of PRP Law LLC
Chia Kwok Ping	Respondent, Third Party	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Won	Lum Kwong Hoe Melvin of Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC Derek Tan Chang Shen of Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Lim Chu Pei	Respondent, Third Party	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Won
VMF3 Ltd	Respondent, Third Party	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Won

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Hri Kumar Nair	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Yeoh Kar Hoe	David Lim & Partners LLP
Ng Wei Jin	David Lim & Partners LLP
Geraldine Zhang Fang	David Lim & Partners LLP
Goh Kok Leong	Ang & Partners
Fu Xiangming Max	Ang & Partners
Navin Kumar s/o Tamil Selvan	Ang & Partners
Pillai Pradeep G	PRP Law LLC
Lin Shuling Joycelyn	PRP Law LLC
Wong Yong Min	PRP Law LLC
Lum Kwong Hoe Melvin	Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC
Derek Tan Chang Shen	Quahe Woo & Palmer LLC

4. Facts

Ms. Lim was the defendant in contribution claims by VMIII and EFIII.
The contribution claims arose from Suit 441, where Ms. Lim was found jointly and severally liable for negligence.
The Court of Appeal affirmed Ms. Lim's joint and several liability in Suit 441.
VMIII and EFIII made payments towards the judgment sum in Suit 441.
Ms. Lim commenced third-party proceedings seeking contribution from other parties.
The third-party claims were struck out by the AR as time-barred.
Ms. Lim appealed the AR's decision.

5. Formal Citations

Value Monetization III Ltd v Lim Beng Choo and another matter, Originating Claim No 125 of 2022 (Registrar’s Appeals Nos 168, 169 and 170 of 2023) and Originating Claim No 126 of 2022 (Registrar’s Appeals Nos 171, 172 and 173 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 303
International Healthway Corp Ltd v The Enterprise Fund III Ltd and others, , [2018] SGHC 246
The Enterprise Fund III Ltd and others v OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd), , [2019] 2 SLR 524
OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd) and another v Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and others, , [2020] SGHC 142
Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and others v OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd) and another and other appeals, , [2021] 1 SLR 1337
Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and others v OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd) and another, , [2021] 2 SLR 424
Tan Juay Pah v Kimly Construction Pte Ltd and others, , [2012] 2 SLR 549
Hwa Aik Engineering Pte Ltd v Munshi Mohammad Faiz and another, , [2021] 1 SLR 1288
Manickam Sankar v Selvaraj Madhavan (trading as MKN Construction & Engineering) and another, , [2012] SGHC 99

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2016-01-01	Mr. Fan Kow Hin ceased to be IHC’s CEO
2016-05-01	Mr. Fan Kow Hin became IHC’s CEO
2016-05-08	Suit 441 filed
2018-01-01	High Court held the Disputed Facilities to be void and unenforceable
2020-07-09	Suit 441 HC Judgment issued
2020-09-03	EFIII paid $2,443,991 to IHC
2020-09-03	VMIII paid $10,622,600.79 to IHC
2020-09-24	EFIII paid $2,443,991 to IHC
2020-09-24	VMIII paid $10,622,600.79 to IHC
2021-03-30	Suit 441 CA Judgment issued
2021-05-24	Court of Appeal found that VMIII had elected to pay the judgment debt
2022-07-08	VMIII and EFIII filed the Contribution Claims against Ms Lim
2022-09-12	Ms Lim commenced third party proceedings in the Contribution Claims
2023-09-11	Appeals dismissed
2023-10-27	Full grounds of decision provided

7. Legal Issues

Limitation of Actions
- Outcome: The court held that the third-party claims were time-barred under the Limitation Act.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Accrual of right to contribution
  - Applicability of Limitation Act
Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court did not make a conclusive decision on res judicata, but made observations on its potential applicability.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Cause of action estoppel
  - Issue estoppel
  - Collateral attack on prior judgment
Contribution
- Outcome: The court discussed the proper procedure for claiming contribution and the accrual of the right to contribution.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Right to contribution
  - Apportionment of liability

8. Remedies Sought

Contribution
Indemnity

9. Cause of Actions

Contribution
Indemnity

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
International Healthway Corp Ltd v The Enterprise Fund III Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2018] SGHC 246	Singapore	Cited for holding the Disputed Facilities to be void and unenforceable.
The Enterprise Fund III Ltd and others v OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 524	Singapore	Cited for affirming the High Court's finding that the Disputed Facilities were void and unenforceable.
OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd) and another v Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and others	High Court	Yes	[2020] SGHC 142	Singapore	Cited for holding the Crest Entities liable for dishonest assistance and unlawful means conspiracy, and Ms. Lim liable for negligence.
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] 1 SLR 1337	Singapore	Cited for dismissing appeals by Crest Capital, Crest Catalyst, and EFIII, overturning findings against VMF3 and VMIII, and affirming Ms. Lim's joint and several liability.
Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and others v OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd) and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 2 SLR 424	Singapore	Cited for finding that VMIII had elected to pay the judgment debt and should seek contributions from co-defendants.
Tan Juay Pah v Kimly Construction Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2012] 2 SLR 549	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a claim to share liability rests on a common liability to the plaintiff.
Royal Brompton Hospital NHS Trust v Hammond and others (Taylor Woodrow Construction (Holdings) Ltd)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] 1 WLR 1397	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a claim to share liability rests on a common liability to the plaintiff.
Aer Lingus plc v Gildacroft Ltd and another	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] EWCA Civ 4	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the relevant date for the running of time against a tortfeasor who seeks contribution is a judgment or award which ascertains the quantum, and not merely the existence, of the tortfeasor’s liability.
Hwa Aik Engineering Pte Ltd v Munshi Mohammad Faiz and another	Appellate Division	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 1288	Singapore	Cited for emphasizing the proper procedure for claiming contribution from a co-defendant.
Manickam Sankar v Selvaraj Madhavan (trading as MKN Construction & Engineering) and another	High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHC 99	Singapore	Cited as an example of a defendant being unable to obtain contribution due to the absence of a formal claim for contribution.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Limitation Act 1959	Singapore
Civil Law Act 1909	Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Contribution claim
Third-party proceedings
Limitation Act
Res judicata
Joint and several liability
Accrual of right
Common liability
Geelong Payment
Disputed Facilities
Negligence

15.2 Keywords

Contribution
Limitation
Res Judicata
Civil Litigation
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Limitation	90
Contribution	85
Torts	75
Joint and Several Liability	70
Res Judicata	70
Civil Procedure	60
Company Law	40
Contract Law	30
Costs	25

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Limitation of Actions
Contribution
Res Judicata