Martin v Singh: Conversion of Vehicle & Damages Assessment

Don King Martin, trading as King Excursion & Transport Provider, appealed against the District Judge's award of damages in DC/DC 2230/2021 for the conversion of his van by Lenny Arjan Singh. The High Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the original damages award. The court awarded damages for the value of the van at the time of conversion but denied the claim for loss of use. The court found that the Respondent's conversion of the Van on 1 February 2021 was the cause of the Appellant’s loss of the Van.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding damages for conversion of a van. The court allowed the appeal, awarding damages for the van's value but denying loss of use.

1.7 Decision Date

26 November 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Don King Martin t/a King Excursion & Transport Provider	Appellant, Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal Allowed in Part	Partial	Gopal Perumal of Gopal Perumal & Co
Lenny Arjan Singh	Respondent, Defendant	Individual	Damages Awarded	Lost	S Thulasidas s/o Rengasamy Suppramaniam of Ling Das & Partners

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Kristy Tan	Judicial Commissioner of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Gopal Perumal	Gopal Perumal & Co
S Thulasidas s/o Rengasamy Suppramaniam	Ling Das & Partners

4. Facts

Appellant purchased a second-hand Toyota Hiace Commuter GL 2.7A in 2016.
Respondent was the Appellant’s friend and resided in Johor Bahru, Malaysia.
On 1 February 2021, the Respondent drove the Van to a property in Johor Bahru.
The Respondent purported to be entitled to possession of the Van on account of outstanding sums owed by the Appellant under a loan agreement.
On 21 January 2022, Malaysian Customs carried out a raid and towed the Van to their compound.
The Appellant has not regained possession of the Van.
The Appellant received a COE rebate of $25,995.

5. Formal Citations

Don King Martin (trading as King Excursion & Transport Provider) v Lenny Arjan Singh, District Court Appeal No 24 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 334
Don King Martin t/a King Excursion & Transport Provider v Lenny Arjan Singh, DC/DC 2230/2021, [2023] SGDC 165

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2016-06-20	Appellant purchased a second-hand Toyota Hiace Commuter GL 2.7A.
2019-02-02	COE for the Van was renewed.
2019-09-30	KETP was registered as the owner of the Van with LTA.
2020-12-13	Appellant reported the Van missing in Johor Bahru.
2020-12-13	LTA issued a letter to the Appellant stating that the Van had been deregistered.
2020-12-31	Appellant retrieved the Van.
2021-02-01	Respondent drove the Van to a property in Johor Bahru.
2021-02-02	Appellant made a police report in Johor Bahru stating that the Van was with the Respondent and had not been returned.
2021-02-26	Appellant made another police report in Johor Bahru stating that he wanted to withdraw his 2 Feb 2021 JB Police Report.
2021-04-21	Appellant left Malaysia for Singapore.
2021-05-08	Appellant made a police report in Singapore.
2021-06-01	Appellant applied to LTA to deregister the Van.
2021-07-01	Appellant applied to LTA to deregister the Van.
2021-08-25	LTA issued a letter to the Appellant stating that the Van had been deregistered and that a COE rebate of $25,995 was granted.
2021-10-19	Appellant commenced DC 2230 against the Respondent.
2022-01-21	Malaysian Customs carried out a raid and towed the Van to their compound.
2022-03-24	Appellant returned to Malaysia.
2022-06-30	Appellant interviewed by Malaysian Customs.
2022-07-05	LTA sent an email to the Appellant stating that the Van had been deregistered on 25 August 2021 due to loss through theft.
2022-10-19	Malaysian Customs sent an Offer to Compound Offences to the Appellant.
2022-11-02	Offer to Compound Offences was stated to be valid until this date.
2022-12-06	Malaysian Customs sent a Notice of Seizure to the Appellant.
2023-08-03	Date of the District Judge’s Judgment.
2023-11-16	Judgment reserved.
2023-11-27	Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

Conversion
- Outcome: The court found that the Respondent had converted the Van on 1 February 2021.
- Category: Substantive
Damages for Conversion
- Outcome: The court awarded damages for the value of the Van at the date of conversion but denied damages for loss of use.
- Category: Substantive
Causation
- Outcome: The court found that the Respondent’s conversion of the Van on 1 February 2021 was the “but for” and legal cause of the Appellant’s loss of the Van.
- Category: Substantive
Mitigation of Loss
- Outcome: The court found that the Appellant did mitigate his loss by seeking and obtaining a COE rebate.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Conversion

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Transportation

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Aries Telecoms (M) Bhd v ViewQwest Pte Ltd (Fiberail Sdn Bhd, third party)	High Court	Yes	[2020] 3 SLR 750	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that a conversion period ends where the party converting the chattel could be said to have ceased to act inconsistently with the owner’s rights.
General and Finance Facilities Ltd v Cooks Cars (Romford) Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1963] 1 WLR 644	N/A	Cited for the principle that conversion is a single wrongful act and the cause of action accrues at the date of the conversion.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric	N/A	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 782	Singapore	Cited for the principles of causation in fact and causation in law.
Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5)	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 883	United Kingdom	Cited for the causal requirements in the context of the tort of conversion.
Fowler v Hollins	N/A	Yes	Fowler v Hollins LR 7 QB 616	N/A	Cited for the principle that persons deal with the property in chattels or exercise acts of ownership over them at their peril.
Fouldes v Willoughby	N/A	Yes	(1841) 8 M & W 540	N/A	Cited for the definition of conversion as a taking with the intent of exercising over the chattel an ownership inconsistent with the real owner’s right of possession.
The “Asia Star”	N/A	Yes	[2010] 2 SLR 1154	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff has a duty to take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss resulting from the defendant’s tort.
Jia Min Building Construction Pte Ltd v Ann Lee Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2004] 3 SLR(R) 288	Singapore	Cited for the principle that an assertion that the plaintiff failed to mitigate his loss must be pleaded and proved by the defendant relying on it.
Chartered Electronics Industries Pte Ltd v Comtech IT Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR(R) 1010	Singapore	Cited for the normal measure of damages in conversion is the value of the goods converted at the time of conversion.
Marco Polo Shipping Co Pte Ltd v Fairmacs Shipping & Transport Services Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2015] 5 SLR 541	Singapore	Cited for the normal measure of damages in conversion is the value of the goods converted at the time of conversion.
Fairmacs Shipping & Transport Services Pte Ltd v Harikutai Engineering Pte Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 904	Singapore	Cited for the normal measure of damages in conversion is the value of the goods converted at the time of conversion.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a court would have to carry out the assessment of damages in a flexible manner as regards what would be adequate proof of damage so as to achieve the purpose of compensatory damages.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2018] 2 SLR 655	Singapore	Cited for the principle that damages falling under what has been termed the “user principle” are assessed by reference to the fee that the defendant would reasonably have had to pay for a licence by the plaintiff to act.
Yenty Lily (trading as Access International Services) v ACES System Development Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2013] 1 SLR 577	Singapore	Cited for the principle that this measure of damages compensates the plaintiff for the interference with or loss of his dominium over his goods.
The Owners of the Steamship “Mediana” v The Owners, Master and Crew of the Lightship “Comet”	N/A	Yes	[1900] AC 113	N/A	Cited for the proposition that his “loss of use” claim did not depend on him showing any particular use he was going to make of the Van.
L Capital Jones Ltd and another v Maniach Pte Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2017] 1 SLR 312	Singapore	Cited for the principle that O 57 r 9A(5) (and, correspondingly, O 55D r 7(5)) of the ROC allows successful respondents to mount a case to affirm the judge’s ultimate decision by raising other arguments which did not find favour with the court below without needing to file a cross-appeal.
Rals International Pte Ltd v Cassa di Risparmio di Parma e Piacenza SpA	N/A	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 455	Singapore	Cited for the principle that it does not give carte blanche to a respondent to circumvent the need to file a cross-appeal in a situation where he is challenging a holding by the court that had gone against him.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Customs Act 1967 (M’sia)	Malaysia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Conversion
Damages
COE
Malaysian Customs
Loss of Use
Mitigation of Loss

15.2 Keywords

Conversion
Damages
Vehicle
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Conversion	95
Torts	90
Damages	90

16. Subjects

Tort Law
Conversion
Damages