ACES System Development v Yenty Lily: Wrongful Termination & Platform Detention
ACES System Development Pte Ltd appealed against the High Court's decision in favor of Yenty Lily, who trades as Access International Services, regarding a subcontract for improvement works. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and V K Rajah JA, dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court's decision that ACES System Development had wrongfully terminated the subcontract. The court awarded damages to Yenty Lily for the wrongful detention of mobile platforms, affirming that ACES System Development must compensate Yenty Lily for losses incurred.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
ACES System Development sued Yenty Lily for wrongful termination. The court ruled in favor of Yenty Lily, awarding damages for wrongful detention of platforms.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ACES System Development Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services) | Respondent | Individual | Appeal upheld in the High Court | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | No |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- ACES System Development Pte Ltd appointed Yenty Lily as a subcontractor for improvement works.
- The subcontract involved providing mobile platforms for 39 blocks of flats.
- ACES System Development Pte Ltd agreed to financially assist Yenty Lily in purchasing the platforms.
- Yenty Lily was to be paid $850,000 for the work.
- Yenty Lily informed ACES System Development Pte Ltd she was unable to carry out further works.
- ACES System Development Pte Ltd terminated the subcontract.
- ACES System Development Pte Ltd continued to use the platforms after termination.
5. Formal Citations
- ACES System Development Pte Ltd v Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services), Civil Appeal No 149 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 53
- Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services) v ACES System Development Pte Ltd, , [2013] 1 SLR 577
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Subcontract entered into between ACES System Development Pte Ltd and Yenty Lily | |
| Yenty Lily informed ACES System Development Pte Ltd she was unable to carry out further works | |
| ACES System Development Pte Ltd replied that it would engage a third party if Yenty Lily did not proceed with the work | |
| Yenty Lily wrote to ACES System Development Pte Ltd regarding the use of platforms and their removal | |
| ACES System Development Pte Ltd responded stating Yenty Lily could not remove the platforms without consent | |
| ACES System Development Pte Ltd terminated the subcontract | |
| Yenty Lily commenced proceedings against ACES System Development Pte Ltd | |
| ACES System Development Pte Ltd completed the project | |
| Trial judge delivered judgment | |
| ACES System Development Pte Ltd returned the platforms to Yenty Lily | |
| Civil Appeal No 149 of 2012 | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Wrongful Termination of Subcontract
- Outcome: The court held that ACES System Development Pte Ltd had wrongfully terminated the subcontract.
- Category: Substantive
- Wrongful Detention of Goods
- Outcome: The court awarded damages to Yenty Lily for the wrongful detention of the platforms.
- Category: Substantive
- Assessment of Damages
- Outcome: The court varied the assessment of damages made by the Assistant Registrar.
- Category: Procedural
- User Principle
- Outcome: The court discussed the user principle and its application to the case.
- Category: Substantive
- Compensation Principle
- Outcome: The court discussed the compensation principle and its application to the case.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Balance sum owing
- Loss of profits
- Return of platforms
- Damages for wrongful detention
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Wrongful Detention of Goods
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Construction Disputes
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chang Ah Lek and others v Lim Ah Koon | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 551 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appeal from a registrar of the High Court to the judge in chambers is by way of rehearing of the application and the judge treats the matter de novo. |
| Ho Yeow Kim v Lai Hai Kuen | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 1068 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appeal from a registrar of the High Court to the judge in chambers is by way of rehearing of the application and the judge treats the matter de novo. |
| Livingstone v The Rawyards Coal Company | House of Lords | Yes | (1880) 5 App Cas 25 | United Kingdom | Cited for the compensation principle that the injured party should be put in the same position as if the tort had not been committed. |
| Carlton Greer v Alstons Engineering Sales and Services Limited | Privy Council | Yes | [2003] UKPC 46 | Trinidad and Tobago | Cited for the principle that the onus lies with the respondent to prove what loss she has suffered. |
| Chartered Electronics Industries Pte Ltd v Comtech IT Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 1010 | Singapore | Cited in relation to losses caused by conversion. |
| The “Pioneer Glory” | High Court | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 232 | Singapore | Cited in relation to losses caused by wrongful detention of goods. |
| Strand Electric and Engineering Co Ltd v Brisford Entertainment Ld | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1952] 2 QB 246 | England and Wales | Cited as the leading case on the user principle in cases of unlawful detention, but the court differs with regard to the reasoning. |
| Gaba Formwork Contractors Pty Ltd v Turner Corporation Ltd and another | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | (1991) 32 NSWLR 175 | Australia | Cited in relation to the principle of mesne profits. |
| Bunnings Group Limited v CHEP Australia Limited | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] NSWCA 342 | Australia | Cited in relation to the principle of mesne profits. |
| Siew Kong Engineering Works (a firm) v Lian Yit Engineering Sdn Bhd and another | High Court | Yes | [1993] 1 SLR(R) 736 | Singapore | Cited for applying the decision in Strand Electric without discussing the different views in that decision itself. |
| Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 883 | United Kingdom | Cited in relation to the restitutionary rationale of the user principle. |
| Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv | High Court | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 543 | Singapore | Cited in relation to the restitutionary rationale of the user principle. |
| Pell Frischmann Engineering Ltd v Bow Valley Iran Ltd and others | Privy Council | Yes | [2011] 1 WLR 2370 | Jersey | Cited in relation to the analysis of the user principle. |
| Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett | Privy Council | Yes | [1995] 1 WLR 713 | Commonwealth of the Bahamas | Cited for the conclusion that the user principle combined both compensatory as well as restitutionary elements. |
| Thomas Teddy and another v Kuiper International Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] SGHC 7 | Singapore | Cited for following the Inverugie decision that the user principle combined both compensatory as well as restitutionary elements. |
| Lipkin Gorman (a firm) v Karpnale Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1991] 2 AC 548 | United Kingdom | Cited as the seminal House of Lords decision establishing the law of restitution. |
| Attorney General v Blake (Jonathan Cape Ltd Third Party) | House of Lords | Yes | [2001] 1 AC 268 | United Kingdom | Cited in relation to the principle set out in Strand Electric. |
| Ministry of Defence v Ashman | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 EGLR 102 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to applying the label of restitution to awards of this character. |
| Ministry of Defence v Thompson | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 EGLR 107 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to applying the label of restitution to awards of this character. |
| The Mediana | House of Lords | Yes | [1900] AC 113 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a wrongdoer has no right to consider what use the owner is going to make of their vessel. |
| Watson, Laidlaw & Co Ltd v Pott, Cassels, and Williamson | House of Lords | Yes | (1914) 31 RPC 104 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that wherever an abstraction or invasion of property has occurred, the law ought to yield a recompense under the category or principle of price or of hire. |
| Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes Ltd and others | English High Court | Yes | [1974] 1 WLR 798 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to damages in a situation of breach of contract. |
| Jaggard v Sawyer and another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 WLR 269 | England and Wales | Cited in relation to damages in a situation of breach of contract. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Subcontract
- Mobile platforms
- Wrongful termination
- Wrongful detention
- User principle
- Compensation principle
- Assessment of damages
- Letter of credit
15.2 Keywords
- Wrongful termination
- Wrongful detention
- Mobile platforms
- Construction
- Subcontract
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Construction Law | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Wrongful Detention | 65 |
| Damages | 60 |
| Compensation Principle | 55 |
| User Principle | 55 |
| Litigation | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Construction Law
- Tort Law
- Restitution