Lim Andy v Tea Yeok Kian Terence: Loan Agreement Dispute & Defence of Payment
In a suit before the High Court of Singapore on 7 April 2015, Lim Andy sued Tea Yeok Kian Terence to recover $213,276, the outstanding balance of a loan agreement. Tea Yeok Kian Terence claimed he had already paid the sum by transferring shares and counterclaimed for overpayment. The court entered judgment for Lim Andy, finding that Tea Yeok Kian Terence had failed to prove his defence of payment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dispute over a loan agreement where the defendant claimed payment via share transfer. The court found the defendant liable for the outstanding sum.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andy Lim | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Tea Yeok Kian Terence | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Andy Lim and Tea Yeok Kian Terence entered into a loan agreement on 17 March 2008 for $2,633,590.
- Tea Yeok Kian Terence claimed he repaid the loan by transferring shares in Tembusu Growth Fund to Andy Lim.
- Andy Lim claimed the Tembusu Share Transfer was to offset losses from his investment in Advance SCT Ltd.
- Tea Yeok Kian Terence admitted to signing the loan agreement.
- Tea Yeok Kian Terence made partial repayments of the loan amount through share transfers and money payments.
- The outstanding balance of the loan was $213,276.
- Tea Yeok Kian Terence's counterclaim was for $1,586,724, alleging overpayment.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Andy v Tea Yeok Kian Terence, Suit No 336 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 92
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Loan agreement signed | |
| Repayment share transfers executed | |
| Tembusu share transfer signed | |
| Money payments began | |
| Money payments ended | |
| Defence and counterclaim filed | |
| Trial began | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant was liable for breach of the loan agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Defence of Payment
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant failed to prove his defence of payment.
- Category: Substantive
- Burden of Proof
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant had the legal burden of proving payment.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bank of China Limited (Singapore Branch) v Huang Ziqiang and another | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 245 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a signatory is prima facie intended to be bound by the terms of a document he signed when his signature is not in dispute. |
| Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-BA (trading as Rabobank International), Singapore Branch v Motorola Electronics Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 63 | Singapore | Confirmed that sections 103-105 of the Evidence Act are provisions on the legal rather than the evidential burden of proof. |
| Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR (R) 855 | Singapore | Explained the function and application of the evidential burden of proof. |
| Wee Yue Chew v Su Sh-Hsyu | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 212 | Singapore | The court held that if the allegation in a defendant’s defence was not a denial of an essential ingredient in the cause of action, but was one which, if established, would constitute a good defence then the legal burden of proving that positive case is on the defendant. |
| Young v Queensland Trustees Limited | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1956) 99 CLR 560 | Australia | The court observed that the defendant must allege and prove payment by way of discharge as a defence to an action for indebtedness in respect of an executed consideration. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Loan Agreement
- Tembusu Share Transfer
- Repayment Share Transfers
- Defence of Payment
- ASCT Investment Losses
- Partial Repayment
- Outstanding Sum
15.2 Keywords
- loan agreement
- share transfer
- payment
- contract
- singapore
- civil
- high court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Debt Recovery | 90 |
| Loan Agreement | 85 |
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Defence of payment | 70 |
| Evidence | 60 |
| Civil Procedure | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Loan Agreement
- Civil Litigation