BMI Tax Services v Heng Keok Meng: Striking Out, Approbation, Reprobation, Abuse of Process

In BMI Tax Services Pte Ltd v Heng Keok Meng and others, the Singapore High Court addressed appeals related to a striking-out application. BMI Tax Services claimed payment for work done for Heng Keok Meng and his companies (KM Heng Women’s Clinic Pte Ltd, KM Heng Clinic & Surgery Pte Ltd, and The Medical and Aesthetic Clinic Pte Ltd) concerning actions by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (IRAS). The defendants denied liability and counterclaimed for breach of duty and fraudulent misrepresentation. The court dismissed the appeal in part, striking out certain portions of the Statement of Claim but declining to strike out the entire claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed in part. Certain portions of the Statement of Claim were struck out, but the entire claim was not struck out.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving BMI Tax Services' claim against Heng Keok Meng and others for unpaid work. The court addressed striking out, approbation, and abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

17 January 2019

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
BMI Tax Services Pte Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Appeal dismissed in part	Partial	Choo Ching Yeow Collin of Tan Peng Chin LLC Nigel Hoe of Tan Peng Chin LLC
Heng Keok Meng	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Calvin Liang of Essex Courts Chambers Duxton Aditi Ravi of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Eugene Jedidah Low Yeow Chin of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Sean Zhen Wei Paul of Tan Kok Quan Partnership
KM Heng Women’s Clinic Pte Ltd	Defendant, Appellant	Corporation	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Calvin Liang of Essex Courts Chambers Duxton Aditi Ravi of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Eugene Jedidah Low Yeow Chin of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Sean Zhen Wei Paul of Tan Kok Quan Partnership
KM Heng Clinic & Surgery Pte Ltd	Defendant, Appellant	Corporation	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Calvin Liang of Essex Courts Chambers Duxton Aditi Ravi of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Eugene Jedidah Low Yeow Chin of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Sean Zhen Wei Paul of Tan Kok Quan Partnership
The Medical and Aesthetic Clinic Pte Ltd	Defendant, Appellant	Corporation	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Calvin Liang of Essex Courts Chambers Duxton Aditi Ravi of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Eugene Jedidah Low Yeow Chin of Tan Kok Quan Partnership Sean Zhen Wei Paul of Tan Kok Quan Partnership

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Mavis Chionh Sze Chyi	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Choo Ching Yeow Collin	Tan Peng Chin LLC
Nigel Hoe	Tan Peng Chin LLC
Calvin Liang	Essex Courts Chambers Duxton
Aditi Ravi	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Eugene Jedidah Low Yeow Chin	Tan Kok Quan Partnership
Sean Zhen Wei Paul	Tan Kok Quan Partnership

4. Facts

BMI Tax Services claimed for work done for Heng Keok Meng and his companies regarding IRAS actions.
The Defendants denied liability and counterclaimed for breach of duty and fraudulent misrepresentation.
The Three Companies signed Tax Retainer Service Agreements with the Plaintiff in 2010.
IRAS issued amended Notices of Assessment to Dr. Heng and the Three Companies in 2012.
The Plaintiff claimed Dr. Heng engaged them in a phone call on 5 January 2012 to handle the IRAS matter.
Matrico issued invoices to KMHWCPL in 2015, which were paid.
Matrico issued further invoices to Dr. Heng and the Three Companies in 2016 and 2017, which were disputed.
The Plaintiff alleged the 2017 invoices were revised from the 2016 invoices and intended to supersede them.

5. Formal Citations

BMI Tax Services Pte Ltd v Heng Keok Meng and others, Suit No 100 of 2018 (Registrar’s Appeal No 160 of 2018), [2019] SGHC 09

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2002-01-01	Dr. Heng and Kam got to know each other.
2010-04-07	The Three Companies signed a Tax Retainer Service Agreement with the Plaintiff.
2012-01-05	Alleged telephone conversation between Dr. Heng and Kam regarding IRAS action.
2012-04-19	IRAS issued amended and/or additional Notices of Assessment to Dr. Heng and the Three Companies.
2015-03-02	Matrico issued an invoice to KMHWCPL for $25,000.
2015-06-16	Matrico issued an invoice to KMHWCPL for $20,000.
2015-10-15	Meeting held at Justicius Law Corporation regarding judicial review.
2016-05-30	Kam's colleague received an email from Highlight Business Services regarding accounting function.
2016-06-07	Matrico issued four invoices to Dr. Heng and the Three Companies.
2017-07-03	Kam sent Dr. Heng and Vivian a text message regarding unpaid invoices.
2017-07-31	Vivian Heng sent Kam a text message requesting more time for payment.
2017-09-21	Kam texted Vivian Heng regarding reissuing invoices.
2017-09-22	Matrico issued invoices to Dr. Heng and the Three Companies.
2017-10-13	Kam texted Vivian Heng regarding debt collection.
2017-10-23	Dr. Heng sent Kam a text message and a letter regarding the invoices.
2017-11-17	BMI Tax responded to Dr. Heng, enclosing a List Of Work Done And Period Of Work.
2018-03-14	BMI Tax filed suit.
2018-07-25	Hearing of RA 160/2018 before Mavis Chionh JC.
2018-08-10	Further hearing regarding the Statement of Claim.
2018-08-17	Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 4) filed.
2018-09-10	Hearing for clarifications by the Plaintiff's counsel.
2018-09-11	Statement of Claim (Amendment No. 5) filed.
2018-09-25	Defence & Counterclaim (Amendment No. 1) filed.
2018-10-01	Further hearing regarding reference to estoppel.
2019-01-18	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Striking Out
- Outcome: The court struck out certain portions of the Statement of Claim but declined to strike out the entire claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether the Statement of Claim should be struck out in its entirety
  - Whether specific paragraphs of the Statement of Claim should be struck out
Approbation and Reprobation
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff's conduct did not so offend the doctrine of approbation and reprobation as to warrant striking out the entire claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether the Plaintiff approbated and reprobated the Tax Retainer Service Agreements
Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found insufficient evidence to find the Plaintiff's claim mala fide and/or an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether the Plaintiff's claim was actuated by malice
  - Whether the Plaintiff's claim against Dr. Heng was solely to use his alleged personal liability as a pressure point
Waiver and Estoppel
- Outcome: The court struck out the pleading of waiver and/or estoppel.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether the Defendants waived the contractual requirement for invoices to be issued by the Plaintiff
  - Whether the Defendants are estopped from invoking any such contractual requirement
Restitutionary Quantum Meruit
- Outcome: The court struck out the claim in restitutionary quantum meruit.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether the Plaintiff's claim in restitutionary quantum meruit was properly pleaded
Implied Contractual Terms
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff's pleadings regarding the implied term were not fatally inconsistent and/or did not offend common sense.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Whether an implied term should be read into the oral agreement between the Plaintiff and Dr. Heng

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Breach of Duty
Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Quantum Meruit

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Tax Litigation

11. Industries

Healthcare
Accounting

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Audi Construction Pte Ltd v Kian Hiap Construction Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 317	Singapore	Cited for the principles of waiver by election and equitable estoppel.
Ice Architects v Empowering People Inspiring Communities	Queen's Bench Division of the High Court of Justice	Yes	[2018] EWHC 281 (QB)	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that clear words are needed to displace the starting point that a provider of services is entitled to be paid once the work has been done.
Fairview Developments Pte Ltd v Ong & Ong Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 318	Singapore	Cited for the principle of objective construction of contractual terms relating to payment.
Lee Siong Kee v Beng Tiong Trading, Import and Export (1988) Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 3 SLR(R) 386	Singapore	Cited for the requirement that a claim in restitutionary quantum meruit must be premised on the contract having been terminated prematurely due to a breach by the opposing party.
Higgins, Danial Patrick v Mulacek, Philippe Emanuel & others	High Court	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 848	Singapore	Cited for the elements of unjust enrichment.
Treasure Valley Group Ltd v Saputra Teddy and another	High Court	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 358	Singapore	Cited for the explanation of the doctrine of approbation and reprobation.
Lipkin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and another	High Court	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 962	Singapore	Cited for the wider dimension of the doctrine of approbation and reprobation, discouraging the adoption of inconsistent attitudes.
Libra Building Construction Pte Ltd v Emergent Engineering Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2016] 1 SLR481	Singapore	Cited to distinguish from the present case regarding the construction of payment claim provisions.
Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan	High Court	Yes	[2012] 1 SLR 457	Singapore	Cited for the principle that while a pleader should be free to plead inconsistent causes of action in the alternative, the inconsistency cannot offend common sense.
Pollmann, Christian Joachim v Ye Xianrong	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 229	Singapore	Cited as an example of a case where a party was held to have put forward inconsistent alternative cases that offended common sense.
Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte and anor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 193	Singapore	Cited for the principles regarding the implication of contractual terms.
EA Apartments Pte Ltd v Tan Bek and others	High Court	Yes	[2017] 3 SLR 559	Singapore	Cited regarding the fairness and prejudice of amendments.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Limitation Act 1980	United Kingdom
Building and Construction Industry Security of Payment Act (Cap 30B, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Road Traffic (Bicycles) Rules (Cap 276, R 3, 1990 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Tax Retainer Service Agreement
Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore
Notices of Assessment
Statement of Claim
Striking Out
Approbation
Reprobation
Abuse of Process
Quantum Meruit
Waiver
Estoppel

15.2 Keywords

striking out
approbation
reprobation
abuse of process
tax
contract
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Procedure	90
Striking Out Applications	80
Civil Practice	75
Estoppel	60
Abuse of Process	60
Contract Law	50
Unjust Enrichment	40
Administrative Law	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Contract Law
Tax Law