Ho Chee Kian v Ho Kwek Sin: Summary Judgment for Breach of Settlement Agreement

In Ho Chee Kian v Ho Kwek Sin, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore granted summary judgment on 18 July 2023 to Ho Chee Kian against Ho Kwek Sin for breach of a settlement agreement. The dispute arose from the administration of the estate of the late Mr. Ho Kok Kwong. The court found that Ho Kwek Sin breached the agreement by failing to make a matching donation to charity after Ho Chee Kian and his brother had made their donations. The court ordered damages to be assessed by the Registrar.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Summary judgment in favour of the claimant, with damages to be assessed by the Registrar.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Summary judgment granted to Ho Chee Kian against Ho Kwek Sin for breaching a settlement agreement regarding donations to charity. Damages to be assessed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Ho Chee KianClaimantIndividualSummary judgment in favour of the claimant, with damages to be assessed by the Registrar.Partial
Ho Kwek SinDefendantIndividualSummary judgment against the defendant, with damages to be assessed by the Registrar.Lost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chuah Hui Fen ChristineD’ Bi An LLC
Yao QinzheD’ Bi An LLC
Luke Lee Wen LoongTan Lee & Partners

4. Facts

  1. The claimant and defendant are beneficiaries of the estate of the late Mr. Ho Kok Kwong.
  2. The defendant was granted letters of administration as the sole administrator of the Estate.
  3. The claimant and defendant entered into a Settlement Agreement on 1 June 2021 regarding donations to charity.
  4. The claimant and his brother donated $308,038.34 to Sian Chay Medical Institution.
  5. The defendant did not make a matching donation to any charitable institution.
  6. The claimant commenced OC 112 against the defendant for breach of the Settlement Agreement.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Ho Chee Kian v Ho Kwek Sin, Originating Claim No 112 of 2023 (Summons No 1447 of 2023), [2023] SGHC 192

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Skeletal remains of the Deceased discovered in his flat.
Police passed the keys to the Flat to the defendant.
Claimant's solicitors informed the defendant that the claimant intended to apply for the letters of administration of the Deceased’s estate.
Defendant replied that he has a prior right to the grant of such letters of administration.
Claimant filed caveat FC/CAVP 80/2020 against the grant of letters of administration.
Claimant replied that he was agreeable to the defendant being appointed as administrator of the Estate, provided that the claimant be joined as a co-administrator.
Defendant informed the claimant that he, as the surviving sibling of the Deceased, has the right to be the sole administrator of the Estate and did not require the claimant’s consent to do this.
Defendant applied to the Family Justice Courts to be the sole administrator of the Estate.
Claimant filed caveat FC/CAVP 8/2021.
Court mediation.
Settlement Agreement entered into.
Claimant withdrew the two caveats he had lodged.
Defendant was granted the letters of administration as the sole administrator of the Estate.
Claimant commenced FC/OSP 10/2022 against the defendant.
OSP 10 was largely dismissed by the Family Justice Courts.
Defendant paid $154,019.17 each to the claimant and HCS.
Claimant and HCS arranged for two cashier’s orders, each of the amount $154,019.17, to be issued in favour of Sian Chay Medical Institution.
SCMI wrote a letter to the claimant and HCS to acknowledge receipt of the sum of $308,038.34.
Claimant provided the Acknowledgement Letter to the defendant by way of an email.
Claimant followed up with a letter.
Defendant requested the official receipts issued by SCMI to prove that the sum of $308,038.34 was duly received.
Defendant requested the official receipts issued by SCMI to prove that the sum of $308,038.34 was duly received.
Claimant commenced HC/OC 112/2023 against the defendant.
Claimant filed the application for summary judgment.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant breached the settlement agreement by failing to make a matching donation to charity.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to perform obligations under settlement agreement
  2. Summary Judgment
    • Outcome: The court granted summary judgment in favor of the claimant, finding that the defendant had no bona fide defense to the claim.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the defendant breached the Settlement Agreement
  2. Order for specific performance of the Settlement Agreement
  3. Damages of $308,038.34 or an amount to be assessed

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Summary Judgment
  • Breach of Contract

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Horizon Capital Fund v Ollech DavidHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 164SingaporeCited for the principles governing a summary judgment application under O 9 r 17 of the ROC 2021.
Ling Yew Kong v Teo Vin Li RichardHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 123SingaporeCited for the purpose of the summary judgment procedure is to enable a claimant to obtain a quick judgment where there is plainly no defence to the claim without trial.
Calvin Klein, Inc and another v HS International Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 1183SingaporeCited regarding when a question of law is complex, it may not be appropriate to decide the issue by way of summary judgment.
Cow v CaseyEnglish Court of AppealYes[1949] 1 KB 474England and WalesCited regarding summary judgment should still be granted once the court is convinced that the question of law, however difficult, is really unarguable.
M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Matsumura AkihikoHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 325SingaporeCited for the tactical burden shifting to the defendant to establish a fair or reasonable probability that he has a real or bona fide defence.
Ritzland Investment Pte Ltd v Grace Management & Consultancy Services Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2014] 2 SLR 1342SingaporeCited for the tactical burden shifting to the defendant to establish a fair or reasonable probability that he has a real or bona fide defence.
Prosperous Credit Pte Ltd v Gen Hwa Franchise International Pte Ltd and othersHigh CourtYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 53SingaporeCited regarding the court will not grant permission to defend if the defendant only provides a mere assertion, contained in an affidavit, of a given situation which forms the basis of his defence.
Y.E.S. F&B Group Pte Ltd v Soup Restaurant Singapore Pte Ltd (formerly known as Soup Restaurant (Causeway Point) Pte Ltd)Court of AppealYes[2015] 5 SLR 1187SingaporeCited regarding a court cannot go behind the parties’ intention and rewrite the contract for them under the guise of interpretation.
RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 413SingaporeCited for the applicable law in relation to discharge of a contract by breach.
San International Pte Ltd (formerly known as San Ho Huat Construction Pte Ltd) v Keppel Engineering Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR(R) 447SingaporeCited regarding the seemingly interchangeable nature of the terms “repudiatory breach” and “renunciation”.
iVenture Card Ltd and others v Big Bus Singapore City Sightseeing Pte Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2022] 1 SLR 302SingaporeCited regarding the seemingly interchangeable nature of the terms “repudiatory breach” and “renunciation”.
Brown Noel Trading Pte Ltd v Donald & McArthy Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[1996] 3 SLR(R) 760SingaporeMentioned for using the expression “repudiatory breach”.
Miller Freeman Exhibitions Pte Ltd v Singapore Industrial Automation Association and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2000] 3 SLR(R) 177SingaporeMentioned for using the expression “repudiatory breach”.
Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 857SingaporeMentioned for using the expression “repudiatory breach”.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal and other mattersCourt of AppealYes[2017] 2 SLR 12SingaporeMentioned for using the expression “repudiatory breach”.
Denka Advantech Pte Ltd and another v Seraya Energy Pte Ltd and another and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2021] 1 SLR 631SingaporeMentioned for using the expression “repudiatory conduct”.
Man Financial (S) Pte Ltd (formerly known as E D & F Man International (S) Pte Ltd) v Wong Bark Chuan DavidCourt of AppealYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 663SingaporeMentioned for using the expression “renunciation”.
Biofuel Industries Pte Ltd v V8 Environmental Pte Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 199SingaporeMentioned for using the expression “renunciation”.
OCBC Securities Pte Ltd v Phang Yul Cher Yeow and another actionHigh CourtYes[1997] 3 SLR(R) 906SingaporeMentioned for using the expression “rescission”.
Photo Production Ltd v Securicor Transport LtdHouse of LordsYes[1980] 1 AC 827United KingdomCited regarding the terminology employed to describe and apply the concepts of breach of contract is far from uniform.
Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp v Marine Transportation Co Ltd (The Hermosa)English Court of AppealYes[1982] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 570England and WalesCited regarding the expression “renunciation” is ambiguous and should not be used.
Heyman and another v Darwins, LimitedHouse of LordsYes[1942] 1 AC 356United KingdomCited regarding the concept of repudiation as being an “elusive” one due to the variety of inconsistent ways the word has been used.
Bettini v GyeQueen’s Bench DivisionYes(1876) 1 QBD 183England and WalesCited regarding an innocent party who terminates a contract ought not to be said to have “repudiated” it.
Vitol SA v Norelf Ltd (The Santa Clara)House of LordsYes[1996] AC 800United KingdomCited regarding where there is a breach or repudiation, and the innocent party is entitled to elect to terminate the performance of the contract, that choice is unfettered.
Ho Choon Han v SCP Holdings Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 260SingaporeCited regarding although the court can determine the legal consequences of a matter that was not argued by a party, the court can only do so if the material facts are sufficiently pleaded.
Family Food Court (a firm) v Seah Boon Lock and another (trading as Boon Lock Duck and Noodle House)Court of AppealYes[2008] 4 SLR(R) 272SingaporeCited regarding the so-called “broad ground” for the recovery of damages as laid out in the House of Lords decision in Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd.
Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals LtdHouse of LordsYes[1994] 1 AC 85United KingdomCited regarding the so-called “broad ground” for the recovery of damages.
Sun Electric Pte Ltd and another v Menrva Solutions Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2019] SGCA 51SingaporeCited regarding the so-called “broad ground” for the recovery of damages as laid out in the House of Lords decision in Linden Gardens Trust Ltd v Lenesta Sludge Disposals Ltd.
Motor Insurers’ Bureau of Singapore and another v AM General Insurance Bhd (formerly known as Kurnia Insurans (Malaysia) Bhd) (Liew Voon Fah, third party)High CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 882SingaporeCited regarding the “broad ground” enables a claimant to sue for damages where the loss of his performance interest cannot be framed in purely financial terms.
Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor and othersHigh CourtYes[2006] SGHC 116SingaporeCited regarding when damages are available, then a court should be slow to order specific performance.
Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 537SingaporeCited regarding the court will only exercise its discretion to grant specific performance if it is just and equitable to do so.
E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2012] 1 SLR 32SingaporeCited regarding one common example where an award of damages is not an adequate remedy is a contract relating to immovable property.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 9 r 17 of the Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court 2021Singapore
Charities (Institutions of A Public Character) Regulations (2008 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Settlement Agreement
  • Letters of Administration
  • Donation
  • Charity
  • Institution of Public Character
  • Summary Judgment
  • Breach of Contract
  • Estate

15.2 Keywords

  • Settlement Agreement
  • Breach of Contract
  • Summary Judgment
  • Donation
  • Charity
  • Singapore
  • High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Summary Judgement90
Contract Law85
Settlement Agreement80
Civil Procedure75
Damages70

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Breach of Contract
  • Summary Judgment