Thomas Teddy v Kuiper International: Tort of Conversion & Damages

In Thomas Teddy and another v Kuiper International Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore addressed an appeal concerning the tort of conversion. The central issue was whether Kuiper International Pte Ltd had unlawfully detained a file server belonging to Thomas Teddy and his wife. The court, presided over by Justice Quentin Loh, found Kuiper International liable for conversion for a brief period but awarded only nominal damages, as the file server was not used for commercial gain and the appellants did not prove substantial loss. The appeal was partially allowed, with the respondent liable for abortive costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed the tort of conversion, focusing on the intention to act inconsistently with ownership rights and damages. The appeal was partially allowed.

1.7 Decision Date

9 January 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Thomas Teddy	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Andrew J Hanam of Andrew LLC
Kuiper International Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Liable for tort of conversion	Lost	Paul Seah of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Tay Guang Yu of Tan Kok Quan Partnership

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Quentin Loh	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Andrew J Hanam	Andrew LLC
Paul Seah	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Tay Guang Yu	Tan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

The second appellant was employed by the respondent and helped set up the company.
The appellants allowed the respondent to use the first appellant's computer file server.
The second appellant's employment was terminated, leading to a separate dispute.
The appellants demanded the return of the file server.
The respondent initially claimed ownership of the file server but later offered to return it as a gesture of goodwill.
The respondent postponed the collection of the file server due to concerns about potential damage claims.
The appellants' contractor was turned away when attempting to collect the file server.

5. Formal Citations

Thomas Teddy and another v Kuiper International Pte Ltd, Originating Summons No 340 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal No 183 of 2012), [2013] SGHC 7

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2010-02-01	Second appellant employed by the respondent around February or 1 March 2010.
2012-03-07	Second appellant's employment was terminated.
2012-04-27	Appellants sent a letter demanding the return of the File Server.
2012-05-11	Respondent replied, ready to return the file server.
2012-08-13	Respondent's solicitor wrote to the appellants’ solicitor asking them to collect the File Server on or before 20 August 2012.
2012-08-21	Second appellant's solicitors replied requesting the password to check the File Server before dismantling.
2012-08-27	Second appellant's solicitors sent a facsimile asking for a change of the collection date to 29 August 2012.
2012-08-28	Respondent’s solicitors replied, agreeing to the change but disclaiming responsibility for the condition of the server.
2012-08-28	Respondent’s solicitors sent an e-mail postponing the collection of the server to a later date.
2012-08-29	Appellants’ contractor and workers were turned away when they arrived to collect the File Server.
2012-09-05	Appellants’ solicitors filed the originating summons.
2012-09-06	Appellants’ solicitors sent a letter asking if the respondent had instructions to accept service of process.
2012-09-07	Respondent’s solicitors replied stating that the respondent has always stood ready to deliver the file server.
2012-09-13	Respondent's solicitor offered for the appellants to collect the File Server any time from 17 to 19 September 2012.
2012-09-24	Respondent’s solicitors wrote again, giving the appellants another opportunity to collect their File Server at any time from 25 to 28 September 2012.
2013-01-10	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Tort of Conversion
- Outcome: The court found the respondent liable for conversion for a short period due to an unjustified refusal to return the file server.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Intention to act inconsistently with owner's rights
  - Unjustified refusal to return property
- Related Cases:
  - [2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101
  - [1998] 2 SLR(R) 1010
Damages for Conversion
- Outcome: The court awarded nominal damages, finding that the file server was not a profit-earning asset and the respondent did not intend to benefit from its detention.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Nominal damages
  - Substantial damages
  - User principle
- Related Cases:
  - [1993] 1 SLR(R) 736
  - [1952] QB 246
  - [2012] SGHC 208

8. Remedies Sought

Return of File Server
Damages for Conversion
Damages for Wrongful Detention

9. Cause of Actions

Conversion

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 4 SLR(R) 1101	Singapore	Cited as the leading Singapore case on the tort of conversion, laying out key propositions of law.
Chartered Electronics Industries Pte Ltd v Comtech IT Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR(R) 1010	Singapore	Cited for guidance on what constitutes an intention to act inconsistently with the owner’s rights in a conversion claim.
Comtech IT Pte Ltd v Chartered Electronics Industries Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1997] SGHC 277	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a refusal to return goods to retain them as evidence of defects is an unjustified refusal.
Aitken Agencies Limited v Richardson	Unknown	Yes	[1967] NZLR 65	New Zealand	Cited as an example of an intentional assertion of a right inconsistent with the rights of the owner constituting conversion.
R H Willis and Son v British Car Auctions Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1978] 1 WLR 438	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the intention to do an act inconsistent with the owner's right is necessarily present when the defendant takes or uses the goods as his own.
Clayton v Le Roy	Unknown	Yes	[1911] 2 KB 1031	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the mere retention of another's property is not conversion unless the defendant intends to keep the thing in defiance of the true owner.
Caxton Publishing Company Limited v Sutherland Publishing Company	House of Lords	Yes	[1939] AC 178	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that possession of a chattel without title is not considered conversion or a tort.
London Jewellers Limited v Sutton	Unknown	Yes	(1934) 50 TLR 193	England and Wales	Cited as an example of a case where detention of goods is adverse to the owner's interests.
Mires v Solebay	Unknown	Yes	(1678) 2 Mod. 242	England and Wales	Cited as an example of a justified refusal to return goods where a warehouseman's employee refuses while consulting with higher authority.
Alexander v Southey	Unknown	Yes	(1821) 5 B & Ald 247	England and Wales	Cited as an example of a justified refusal to return goods where a warehouseman's employee refuses while consulting with higher authority.
Solomon v Dawes	Unknown	Yes	(1794) 1 Esp 83	England and Wales	Cited as an example of a justified refusal to return property where the defendant requires a reasonable time to ascertain the identity of the true owner.
Vaughan v Watt	Unknown	Yes	(1840) 6 M & W 492, 9 LJ Ex 272	England and Wales	Cited as an example of a justified refusal to return property where the defendant requires a reasonable time to ascertain the identity of the true owner.
Davies v Nicholas	Unknown	Yes	(1836) 7 C &P 339	England and Wales	Cited as an example of an insufficient response to a demand for return of property, where the defendant says they 'would do nothing but what the law required.'
Atkin & Slater	Unknown	Yes	(1844) 1 Car & Kir 356, 174 ER 845	England and Wales	Cited as an example of an insufficient response to a demand for return of property, where the defendant says they would 'consult his attorney' without giving up the property.
Siew Kong Engineering Works (a firm) v Lian Yit Engineering Sdn Bhd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR(R) 736	Singapore	Cited for adopting the 'user principle' in assessing damages for conversion and distinguishing between wrongdoers who merely detain goods and those who detain with a view to deriving a benefit.
Strand Electric & Engineering Co Ld v Brisford Entertainments Ld	Unknown	Yes	[1952] QB 246	England and Wales	Cited for the 'user principle' in assessing damages for conversion, particularly when the property is of a profit-earning character.
Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services) v ACES System Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2012] SGHC 208	Singapore	Cited for adopting the 'user principle' and discussing its compensatory and restitutionary nature in the context of damages for wrongful detention.

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

File Server
Tort of Conversion
Unjustified Refusal
Nominal Damages
User Principle
Profit-Earning Property
Unlawful Detention

15.2 Keywords

conversion
damages
file server
unjustified refusal
singapore
high court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Torts	75
Damages	60
Estoppel	30
Breach of Contract	25
Contract Law	25
Evidence	20

16. Subjects

Tort
Property Law
Damages