Lim Swee Joo v Nan Bei Dou Mu Gong: Breach of Oral Loan Agreement for Temple Funding

In the case of Lim Swee Joo v Nan Bei Dou Mu Gong and Goh Joo Heng, heard in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 5 February 2024, Plaintiff Lim Swee Joo claimed $1,011,295.95 for loans allegedly made to the First Defendant, Nan Bei Dou Mu Gong, a temple, based on an oral agreement. The Second Defendant, Goh Joo Heng, purportedly entered into the agreement on behalf of the First Defendant. The court found that the Plaintiff had loaned the First Defendant the sum of $1,011,295.95 and that the First Defendant is required to repay this sum. The court dismissed the claims against the Second Defendant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiff Lim Swee Joo sues Nan Bei Dou Mu Gong for breach of an oral loan agreement. The court found in favor of the Plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lim Swee JooPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Nan Bei Dou Mu GongDefendantAssociationClaim DismissedLost
Goh Joo HengDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff claimed $1,011,295.95 for purported loans to the First Defendant, a temple.
  2. The claim hinged on an alleged oral loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Second Defendant on behalf of the First Defendant.
  3. The Defendants denied any agreement to extend loans, claiming the moneys were donations.
  4. The First Defendant was registered as a society on 19 September 2016.
  5. The Plaintiff was the former chairman of the First Defendant from 2016 to 2018.
  6. The Second Defendant was a committee member of the First Defendant.
  7. The First Defendant's audited financial statement for the financial year ending on 30 June 2017 was prepared.
  8. The First Defendant's Annual General Meeting was held on 6 December 2018.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lim Swee Joo v Nan Bei Dou Mu Gong and another, Suit No 6 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 33

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First Defendant registered as a society under the Societies Act
First Defendant's Annual General Meeting held
Writ issued
Trial began
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Trial
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the First Defendant breached the oral loan agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Formation of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no valid and enforceable oral agreement between the parties.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Certainty of terms
  3. Proof of Evidence
    • Outcome: The court assessed whether the evidence showed that it was more likely than not that the moneys extended to the First Defendant were not gifts or donations but were given in the form of loans.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Onus of proof
  4. Unjust Enrichment
    • Outcome: The court did not rule on this issue as it found the Plaintiff had made out its claim in debt.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Unjust Enrichment
  • Breach of Warranty of Authority

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
PT Bayan Resources TBK and another v BCBC Singapore Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2019] 1 SLR 30SingaporeCited to establish that there is no presumption that an obligation to repay arises from mere receipt of a sum of money.
Tan Chin Hock v Teo Cher Koon and another and another appealUnknownYes[2022] 2 SLR 314SingaporeCited to establish that there is no presumption that an obligation to repay arises from mere receipt of a sum of money.
Seldon v DavidsonUnknownYes[1968] 1 WLR 1083England and WalesCited as an example of a case that was wrongly decided, regarding the presumption of an implied obligation to repay money.
Dynasty Line Limited (in liquidation) v Sukamto Sia and another and another appealUnknownYes[2014] 3 SLR 277SingaporeCited regarding the issue of vagueness and uncertainty in contract terms.
T2 Networks Pte Ltd v Nasioncom Sdn BhdUnknownYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 1SingaporeCited regarding the issue of vagueness and uncertainty in contract terms.
Siemens Industry Software Pte Ltd v Lion Global Offshore Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 251SingaporeCited regarding the precision expected in drafting agreements, particularly in commercial contexts.
Tay Eng Chuan v Ace Insurance LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 95SingaporeCited regarding the application of the contra proferentem rule in interpreting written contracts.
Tam Wing Chuen v Bank of Credit and Commerce Hong Kong LtdUnknownYes[1996] 2 BCLC 69Hong KongCited regarding the application of the contra proferentem rule.
Ang Boon Tian v Jervois Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 104SingaporeCited regarding the principle that money lent is repayable on demand unless otherwise agreed.
Quah Poh Hoe Peter v Probo Pacific Leasing Pte LtdUnknownYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 400SingaporeCited regarding the liability of an agent acting for a non-existent principal.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Societies Act (Cap 311, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Oral Agreement
  • Loan Acknowledgment
  • Transaction Details
  • Audited Financial Statements
  • Kew Ong Yah
  • Donations
  • Loans

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • loan
  • temple
  • oral agreement
  • societies act
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Breach of Contract
  • Loans
  • Societies
  • Temples