Kwek Hong Lim v Kwek Sum Chuan: Oral Contract Dispute over Supermarket Shares and Property
Mr. Kwek Hong Lim sued his father, Mr. Kwek Sum Chuan, in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, claiming 60% of the shareholding in YES Supermarket Pte Ltd and 60% of a property based on an alleged oral agreement made in 2011. The court, presided over by Hoo Sheau Peng J, dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged oral agreement. The claim was for breach of contract.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
I dismiss the plaintiff’s claim.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Son sues father over an alleged oral agreement for supermarket shares and property. The court dismissed the claim, finding no valid contract.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kwek Hong Lim | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Kwek Sum Chuan | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff claimed an oral agreement with his father for 60% shares in YES Supermarket and a property.
- The alleged agreement was purportedly made in late 2011 in exchange for the plaintiff's continued employment.
- Plaintiff claimed he rejected an offer from Pasaraya due to the alleged oral agreement.
- Defendant denied the existence of the alleged oral agreement.
- Plaintiff was appointed a director of the Company in 2012.
- Plaintiff's shareholding increased by about 6% in 2012.
- The relationship between father and son deteriorated significantly by March 2018.
5. Formal Citations
- Kwek Hong Lim v Kwek Sum Chuan, Suit No 1234 of 2020, [2023] SGHC 67
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Company incorporated | |
| Plaintiff started working for the Company | |
| Property purchased in the name of Kwek Sum Chuan Holding Pte Ltd | |
| Plaintiff appointed CEO | |
| Alleged Oral Agreement entered into | |
| Plaintiff appointed a director of the Company | |
| Parties met in the Company’s office | |
| Plaintiff asked the defendant to honour the Second Set of Terms | |
| Company’s supermarket business ceased to be viable | |
| Relationship between father and son deteriorated significantly | |
| Shareholders resolved to end the Company’s supermarket operations | |
| Plaintiff threatened to commence proceedings against the defendant | |
| Defendant met with plaintiff | |
| Shin Min News ran an article about the family’s disputes | |
| Parties met again | |
| Plaintiff commenced DC/DC 1437/2020 against the defendant | |
| Defence dated | |
| Defendant’s Opening Statement dated | |
| Trial began | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Existence of Oral Agreement
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of the alleged oral agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] SGHC 78
- Intention to Create Legal Relations
- Outcome: The court was not convinced that the parties intended to create legal relations.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2019] SGCA 61
- Certainty of Contractual Terms
- Outcome: The court found the Second Set of Terms to be uncertain in several aspects.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2022] SGHC 192
- [1934] 2 KB 1
- [2013] 4 SLR 1023
- [2015] 4 SLR 69
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff has not managed to prove the authenticity of the Letter of Offer and Video Recording. As such, the letter and video are inadmissible.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 4 SLR 883
- [2006] 3 SLR(R) 769
- [2021] 1 SLR 1217
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491
8. Remedies Sought
- 60% of the shares in the Company
- 60% of the Property
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Retail
- Supermarket
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ARS v ART | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 78 | Singapore | Cited for the guiding principles on the proper approach for determining the existence of an oral agreement. |
| CIMB Bank Bhd v Italmatic Tyre & Retreading Equipment (Asia) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2021] 4 SLR 883 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that authenticity is a necessary condition of admissibility of evidence. |
| Jet Holding Ltd and others v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 769 | Singapore | Cited for the rule that a party is deemed to admit the authenticity of a document in his opponent’s list of documents unless he shows that he had issued a notice of non-admission within the stipulated time. |
| CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1217 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the maker of a document should generally be called as a witness to prove its authenticity. |
| Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology Inc and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 491 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the failure to comply with any of the requirements under O 40A may result in the expert’s testimony being accorded little or no evidentiary weight and adverse cost orders for the party who engaged that expert. |
| Ong Wui Teck (personal representative of the estate of Chew Chen Chin, deceased) v Ong Wui Swoon and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] SGCA 61 | Singapore | Cited for the presumption that parties in a domestic context have no intention to create legal relations. |
| Chan Tam Hoi (alias Paul Chan) v Wang Jian and other matters | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 192 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that for a contract to be valid and enforceable, its terms must be sufficiently certain. |
| Foley v Classique Coaches Ltd | Court of King's Bench | Yes | [1934] 2 KB 1 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that where a term or agreement is uncertain, and where there is no objective or reasonable method of ascertaining how the term or agreement is to be carried out, the term or agreement is unworkable. |
| Rudhra Minerals Pte Ltd v MRI Trading Pte Ltd (formerly known as CWT Integrated Services Pte Ltd) | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1023 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where a term or agreement is uncertain, and where there is no objective or reasonable method of ascertaining how the term or agreement is to be carried out, the term or agreement is unworkable. |
| Harwindar Singh s/o Geja Singh v Wong Lok Yung Michael and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 69 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that while a contractual term may provide for a range of options, such a term is uncertain if there is no agreed method to decide on an option within that range. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 27 r 4(1) of the Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
| Order 40A of the 2014 ROC |
| O 40A r 3(2)(a) of the 2014 ROC |
| O 40A r 3(2)(h) of the 2014 ROC |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Oral Agreement
- Shareholding
- Supermarket
- Property
- Director
- CEO
- Settlement Agreement
- Authenticity of Evidence
- Intention to Create Legal Relations
- Certainty of Terms
15.2 Keywords
- oral contract
- shares
- property
- family dispute
- supermarket
- Singapore
- high court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 90 |
| Oral contract | 80 |
| Intention to create legal relations | 75 |
| Evidence Law | 70 |
| Certainty of terms | 70 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Evidence
- Family Business