Hon G v Tan Pei Li: Application for Permission to Appeal Decision on Counterfeit Luxury Watches
In Hon G v Tan Pei Li, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 19 July 2023, Hon G applied for permission to appeal a District Judge's decision in favor of Tan Pei Li regarding a dispute over the sale of counterfeit luxury watches. The District Judge had ruled in favor of Tan Pei Li's counterclaim for a refund of $28,000 for a Rolex watch, finding that Hon G had breached the oral agreement by selling counterfeit watches. The High Court dismissed Hon G's application for permission to appeal, agreeing with the District Judge's decision that there was no prima facie case of error or question of general principle decided for the first time.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Hon G seeks permission to appeal a decision finding him liable for selling counterfeit watches to Tan Pei Li. The court dismisses the application.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hon G | Applicant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Pei Li | Respondent | Individual | Application dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Hon G and Tan Pei Li entered into an oral agreement for the sale of two luxury pre-owned watches.
- The agreed price for the Rolex watch was $28,000, and $16,000 for the Hublot watch.
- Tan Pei Li paid $28,000 for the Rolex watch, and the watches were delivered.
- Tan Pei Li withheld payment for the Hublot watch, claiming the watches were not authentic.
- Hon G filed a claim to recover the $16,000 for the Hublot watch.
- Tan Pei Li counterclaimed for a refund of $28,000 for the Rolex watch.
- The District Judge found in favor of Tan Pei Li and ordered Hon G to refund $28,000.
5. Formal Citations
- Hon G v Tan Pei Li, Originating Application No 424 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 193
- Hon G v Tan Pei Li, , [2023] SGMC 8
- Hon G v Tan Pei Li, , [2023] SGMC 21
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Oral agreement entered into for the sale of watches. | |
| Tan Pei Li paid $28,000 for the Rolex Watch. | |
| Watches delivered to Tan Pei Li. | |
| District Judge dismissed Hon G’s claim of $16,000. | |
| Hon G's affidavit affirmed. | |
| Tan Pei Li's affidavit affirmed. | |
| High Court dismissed the application for permission to appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Permission to Appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for permission to appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862
- [2021] 2 SLR 683
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The District Judge found a breach of contract due to the watches being counterfeit.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 413
- Sale of Goods Act - Acceptance of Goods
- Outcome: The District Judge found that the Respondent was not deemed to have accepted the watches.
- Category: Substantive
- Failure of Consideration
- Outcome: The District Judge found that there was a failure of consideration as the watches were not authentic.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Refund of Purchase Price
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Failure of Consideration
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Retail
- Luxury Goods
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 413 | Singapore | Cited for the four situations in which an innocent party is entitled to discharge a contract. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and another | N/A | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 862 | Singapore | Cited for the test for permission to appeal. |
| Lin Jianwei v Tung Yu-Lien Margaret and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 683 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the criteria to be satisfied for permission to appeal to be granted. |
| Rodeo Power Pte Ltd and others v Tong Seak Kan and another | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 16 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a prima facie case of error must be one of law and not of fact. |
| Zhou Wenjing v Shun Heng Credit Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 313 | Singapore | Cited for the conjunctive issues to consider for an error of law. |
| Bellingham, Alex v Reed, Michael | N/A | Yes | [2022] 4 SLR 513 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the applicant must show something more than just his disagreement with the court’s decision. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 19 r 15(2) of the Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
| Sale of Goods Act 1979 | Singapore |
| s 35(1)(a) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 35(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Permission to Appeal
- Prima Facie Case of Error
- Question of General Principle
- Counterfeit Watches
- Oral Agreement
- As-is-where-is
- Sale of Goods Act
- Acceptance of Goods
- Failure of Consideration
15.2 Keywords
- permission to appeal
- counterfeit watches
- breach of contract
- sale of goods
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 90 |
| Breach of Contract | 85 |
| Sale of Goods | 75 |
| Civil Procedure | 70 |
| Oral Agreement | 70 |
| Failure of consideration | 65 |
| Appeal | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Sale of Goods