Mak-Levrion v Shiamala: Loan Recovery Dispute over $466,700
In the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha sued R Shiamala to recover $466,700 arising from interest-free loans made between 2016 and 2019. The Defendant initially admitted to taking loans but later claimed the money was an investment. Mohamed Faizal JC ruled in favor of the Claimant, finding the Defendant's account not credible and granting judgment for the Claimant.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Claimant
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court case involving Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha's claim against R Shiamala for $466,700 in unpaid loans. Judgment for Claimant.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha @ Mai Jiaqi Natasha | Claimant | Individual | Judgment for Claimant | Won | |
| R Shiamala | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Faizal | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Claimant provided loans to Defendant between 2016 and 2019.
- Defendant signed an acknowledgment of debt for $525,200.
- Defendant initially admitted to taking loans but later claimed the money was an investment.
- Defendant made some repayments, but the total amount remained disputed.
- Claimant provided documentary evidence of loans, including bank statements and WhatsApp messages.
- Defendant did not provide any documentary evidence to support her claims.
5. Formal Citations
- Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha (alias Mai Jiaqi Natasha) v R Shiamala, Originating Claim No 241 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 207
- Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha (alias Mai Jiaqi Natasha) v R Shiamala, , [2023] SGHC 335
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parties became acquainted | |
| Claimant saw Defendant distressed | |
| Claimant made first loan to Defendant | |
| Imeta Edu Services Pte Ltd struck off | |
| Acknowledgment of debt signed | |
| Action filed | |
| Defendant filed original defence | |
| Claimant applied to amend Statement of Claim | |
| AR Li allowed Claimant's application to amend pleadings | |
| Defendant filed amended defence | |
| Defendant filed affidavit | |
| Claimant filed HC/SUM 1202/2024 | |
| HC/SUM 1202/2024 heard and dismissed | |
| Defendant filed application to amend pleadings | |
| Trial began | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendant breached the loan agreements by failing to repay the loans.
- Category: Substantive
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court rejected the Defendant's defence of misrepresentation.
- Category: Substantive
- Limitation
- Outcome: The court rejected the Defendant's defence of limitation.
- Category: Procedural
- Laches
- Outcome: The court rejected the Defendant's defence of laches.
- Category: Procedural
- Promissory Estoppel
- Outcome: The court rejected the Defendant's defence of promissory estoppel.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Debt Recovery
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mak-Levrion Kah Kay Natasha (alias Mai Jiaqi Natasha) v R Shiamala | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 335 | Singapore | Cited for the appeal against summary judgment, which was allowed due to the applicant failing to establish a prima facie case in relation to the quantum of debt. |
| CIMB Bank Bhd v World Fuel Services (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1217 | Singapore | Cited regarding the power to compare signatures on a disputed document under s 75 of the Evidence Act. |
| City Hardware Pte Ltd v Kenrich Electronics Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 733 | Singapore | Cited for the legal definition of loans which encompasses a promise to repay. |
| Viet Hai Petroleum Corp v Ng Jun Quan and another and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 887 | Singapore | Cited regarding the proposition that an acknowledgment of debt is an absolute acknowledgment by the parties that the quantum was owing, but the court found that this proposition did not apply in this case. |
| Cytec Industries Pte Ltd v APP Chemicals International (Mau) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 769 | Singapore | Cited regarding s 26(2) of the Limitation Act specifically restarts the clock on limitation periods once the debtor acknowledges or makes repayments on the debt. |
| Chuan & Company Pte Ltd v Ong Soon Huat | High Court | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 205 | Singapore | Cited regarding even when limitation has set in against a debt, the debt can be revived by a subsequent acknowledgment. |
| E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 32 | Singapore | Cited regarding the doctrine of laches is an equitable doctrine that applies where there has been an unreasonable delay or negligence on the part of a party to pursue a valid claim that is accompanied by circumstances that would render it unjust to afford such claimant a remedy. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee and another | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited regarding the argument of fraud. |
| Long Foo Yit and Another v Mobil Oil Singapore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1997] SGHC 323 | Singapore | Cited regarding the elements of promissory estoppel. |
| Wright Norman and another v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 640 | Singapore | Cited regarding amendments to pleadings should, where possible, be allowed where it enables the substantive issues to be ventilated at trial, especially where the party responding to such amendments can be compensated appropriately by way of costs and is not caused any other undue prejudice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Limitation Act 1959 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Loan
- Acknowledgment of Debt
- Interest-free
- IOU
- Investment
- Misrepresentation
- Limitation
- Laches
- Promissory Estoppel
15.2 Keywords
- loan
- debt
- contract
- Singapore
- civil
- litigation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Money and moneylenders | 85 |
| Contracts | 70 |
| Banking and Finance | 60 |
| Commercial Law | 50 |
| Civil Practice | 40 |
| Estoppel | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Debt Recovery
- Civil Litigation