Mark Yeo, Director
Contractual Disputes
When contract disputes arise in business, it is crucial to get them resolved as quickly as possible.
However, resolving contract disputes can be expensive and stressful without the proper assistance. That’s why at Engelin Teh Practice LLC (ETP), we offer tactical and strategic dispute resolution services that cover everything from disputes about contract terms to disagreements about alleged contract breaches.
At ETP, we focus on dispute resolution approaches that help you meet your commercial needs and goals. That’s why we work closely with you and your team to fully understand your business, the dispute affecting it, and your overall commercial objectives.
Our aim is to make sure any dispute is resolved quickly, efficiently and with minimal impact on your business. We’ll always explore the most practical and cost-effective avenues to resolve your dispute, taking control of the situation and leaving you to get on with running your business.
Get in touch with our experienced team of contract dispute solicitors today, and we’ll get back to you in 3 hours or less.
This case was for a client in Dubai
A multi-million breach of Trust Case
We acted for a high net worth client (“B”) against her husband (“M”), who had misappropriated more than USD 60 million in cash and securities from the Singapore bank accounts held jointly in their names and held in the name of 2 British Virgin Island (“BVI”) companies (in which both B and M were equal shareholders and directors). It was not disputed that these Singapore bank accounts were funded by B’s inheritance. However, M’s position was that he was entitled to withdraw all such monies and securities whenever he wanted because they were all gifted to him by B previously. To support his position, M called their son (who was estranged from B) as a witness to give evidence supporting M’s contention of such a gift. B denied any such gift being made to M. The High Court has found that there was no such gift as alleged by M and that B did not intend to make gifts of the money placed in all the Singapore bank accounts including the accounts of the 2 BVI companies.
As more than USD 30 million was misappropriated by M from their joint Singapore accounts and placed in M’s own personal sole accounts, the High Court declared that M held such sums on trust for B and ordered M to provide an account. Tracing orders were also granted accordingly.
No orders were made by the High Court relating to the monies and securities which were misappropriated by M from the Singapore bank accounts of the 2 BVI companies although B sought various declarations of trust over such monies and securities. The High Court was of the view that B’s intention at the time she transferred funds to the Singapore bank accounts of the BVI companies (which were incorporated as investment holding companies) must have been to protect and “immunise” the funds from her mother and sister using the shield that incorporation affords. As such, BVI companies therefore did not hold the monies and securities on trust for her but instead that title to such monies and securities vested in the BVI companies in the usual way. On that basis, it was held that B did not have locus standi to bring the action against M for such monies and securities.
The “Borneo” Case
We acted for Borneo Ventures Pte Ltd (“BV”), a subsidiary of GSH Corporation Limited (a listed company in Singapore) in a High Court case against Datuk Edward Ong Han Nam (“OHN”). Through a subscription agreement dated 30 December 2013 (“Contract”), BV acquired 77.5% of the share capital in The Sutera Harbour Group Sdn Bhd (“SH Group”) for a consideration of about RM 700 million. Completion for the acquisition occurred about 3 months later on 26 March 2014.
The Case:
Unknown to BV, on 21 March 2014 (just 5 days before completion of BV’s acquisition), OHN got SHGCC to execute a sale and purchase agreement to sell a part of the Land measuring 1.459 acres where a power plant was situated (“Subject Land”) a company called Omega Brilliance Sdn Bhd (“OBSB”) for only RM 1,000 (“S&P”). When the S&P was executed, OHN was a director of SHGCC and the ultimate controller of OBSB. The S&P was back-dated to 1 March 2014 (“S&P”). BV was never told or given a copy of the S&P at any time. BV only discovered the S&P amongst the files of SHGCC more than a year later in a tax review.
The Judgement:
The High Court of Singapore determined that OHN breached the warranties in the SA and found in BV’s favour – ordering injunctions against OHN to restrain him from completing the transaction and/or enforcing the S&P and for him to procure that OBSB (which he controls) to discharge / terminate the S&P forthwith. Damages and costs were also awarded to BV.
For a further description please read below:
- Our Expertise
-
Mark Yeo, Director
Contractual Disputes
When contract disputes arise in business, it is crucial to get them resolved as quickly as possible.
However, resolving contract disputes can be expensive and stressful without the proper assistance. That’s why at Engelin Teh Practice LLC (ETP), we offer tactical and strategic dispute resolution services that cover everything from disputes about contract terms to disagreements about alleged contract breaches.
At ETP, we focus on dispute resolution approaches that help you meet your commercial needs and goals. That’s why we work closely with you and your team to fully understand your business, the dispute affecting it, and your overall commercial objectives.
Our aim is to make sure any dispute is resolved quickly, efficiently and with minimal impact on your business. We’ll always explore the most practical and cost-effective avenues to resolve your dispute, taking control of the situation and leaving you to get on with running your business.
Get in touch with our experienced team of contract dispute solicitors today, and we’ll get back to you in 3 hours or less.
- Breach of Trust Case
-
This case was for a client in Dubai
A multi-million breach of Trust Case
We acted for a high net worth client (“B”) against her husband (“M”), who had misappropriated more than USD 60 million in cash and securities from the Singapore bank accounts held jointly in their names and held in the name of 2 British Virgin Island (“BVI”) companies (in which both B and M were equal shareholders and directors). It was not disputed that these Singapore bank accounts were funded by B’s inheritance. However, M’s position was that he was entitled to withdraw all such monies and securities whenever he wanted because they were all gifted to him by B previously. To support his position, M called their son (who was estranged from B) as a witness to give evidence supporting M’s contention of such a gift. B denied any such gift being made to M. The High Court has found that there was no such gift as alleged by M and that B did not intend to make gifts of the money placed in all the Singapore bank accounts including the accounts of the 2 BVI companies.
As more than USD 30 million was misappropriated by M from their joint Singapore accounts and placed in M’s own personal sole accounts, the High Court declared that M held such sums on trust for B and ordered M to provide an account. Tracing orders were also granted accordingly.
No orders were made by the High Court relating to the monies and securities which were misappropriated by M from the Singapore bank accounts of the 2 BVI companies although B sought various declarations of trust over such monies and securities. The High Court was of the view that B’s intention at the time she transferred funds to the Singapore bank accounts of the BVI companies (which were incorporated as investment holding companies) must have been to protect and “immunise” the funds from her mother and sister using the shield that incorporation affords. As such, BVI companies therefore did not hold the monies and securities on trust for her but instead that title to such monies and securities vested in the BVI companies in the usual way. On that basis, it was held that B did not have locus standi to bring the action against M for such monies and securities.
- The Borneo Case
-
The “Borneo” Case
We acted for Borneo Ventures Pte Ltd (“BV”), a subsidiary of GSH Corporation Limited (a listed company in Singapore) in a High Court case against Datuk Edward Ong Han Nam (“OHN”). Through a subscription agreement dated 30 December 2013 (“Contract”), BV acquired 77.5% of the share capital in The Sutera Harbour Group Sdn Bhd (“SH Group”) for a consideration of about RM 700 million. Completion for the acquisition occurred about 3 months later on 26 March 2014.
The Case:
Unknown to BV, on 21 March 2014 (just 5 days before completion of BV’s acquisition), OHN got SHGCC to execute a sale and purchase agreement to sell a part of the Land measuring 1.459 acres where a power plant was situated (“Subject Land”) a company called Omega Brilliance Sdn Bhd (“OBSB”) for only RM 1,000 (“S&P”). When the S&P was executed, OHN was a director of SHGCC and the ultimate controller of OBSB. The S&P was back-dated to 1 March 2014 (“S&P”). BV was never told or given a copy of the S&P at any time. BV only discovered the S&P amongst the files of SHGCC more than a year later in a tax review.
The Judgement:
The High Court of Singapore determined that OHN breached the warranties in the SA and found in BV’s favour – ordering injunctions against OHN to restrain him from completing the transaction and/or enforcing the S&P and for him to procure that OBSB (which he controls) to discharge / terminate the S&P forthwith. Damages and costs were also awarded to BV.
For a further description please read below: