VICTOR FOO YONG SIANG v TAN HENG KHOON

[2024] SGHC 101 High Court (General Division) 12 April 2024 • HC/OC 462/2023 ( HC/RA 27/2024 ) • 15 min read
10 cases cited (9 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Catchwords

Credit And Security — Money and moneylenders — Loans of money Credit And Security — Money and moneylenders — Illegal moneylending Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Threshold of triable issues

Practice Areas

Credit And Security Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Kwek Mean Luck Delivered

Counsel (5)

David Nayar and Associates Firm Chng He Han Counsel Defendant David Nayar Counsel Claimant Elsie Lim Yan Counsel Defendant Koh Weijin Leon Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

Foo Yong Siang Victor Claimant Tan Heng Khoon Defendant

Case Significance

Foo Yong Siang Victor v Tan Heng Khoon [2024] SGHC 101 was decided by the General Division of the High Court (Originating Claim No 462 of 2023, Registrar's Appeal No 27 of 2024), with Kwek Mean Luck J delivering the grounds of decision on 12 April 2024 after a hearing on 9 April 2024. Registrar's Appeal 27/2024 was the defendant Tan Heng Khoon's appeal against the Assistant Registrar's decision in HC/SUM 2928 to grant summary judgment in favour of the claimant in the sum of $451,089. The defendant was the sole director and shareholder of a car dealership, 360 Holdings Pte Ltd, and the claimant, Victor Foo Yong Siang, met him after purchasing a car from the company. Pursuant to an alleged oral "Company Investment Agreement" under which the claimant would invest in a profit-sharing program in return for a monthly return, the claimant invested various sums between June 2020 and July 2021. The court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the grant of summary judgment.

Summary

Victor Foo Yong Siang obtained summary judgment for $451,089 against Tan Heng Khoon, the sole director and shareholder of a car dealership, based on a repayment agreement after Tan defaulted on sums advanced and post-dated cheques were dishonoured, and Tan appealed against that decision. The central issue was whether there were triable issues, including Tan's contention that the claimant was an unlicensed moneylender under the Moneylenders Act. The General Division of the High Court found that the evidence showed a commercial investment rather than a business of moneylending, held that the presumption under section 3 of the Act was rebutted and the agreement enforceable, and dismissed the appeal with costs of $9,000 to the claimant.

What was decided in Foo Yong Siang Victor v Tan Heng Khoon [2024] SGHC 101?

Kwek Mean Luck J dismissed Tan Heng Khoon's Registrar's Appeal and affirmed the Assistant Registrar's grant of summary judgment in favour of Victor Foo Yong Siang for $451,089. The claim arose from sums the claimant invested with the defendant under an alleged profit-sharing investment agreement.

What was the alleged investment arrangement in [2024] SGHC 101?

Under an alleged oral "Company Investment Agreement", Victor Foo Yong Siang was to invest in a profit-sharing program connected to the car dealership 360 Holdings Pte Ltd in return for a monthly return, with sums repayable on demand. He invested various amounts between June 2020 and July 2021.

Cases Cited (10)

SG (1)
[2010] SGHC 6
SLR (8)
[1991] 1 SLR(R) 164 [1995] 2 SLR(R) 900 [2003] 4 SLR 338 [2005] 1 SLR(R) 733 [2014] 3 SLR 524 [2015] 1 SLR 325 [2018] 3 SLR 617 [2022] 1 SLR 434
UK (1)
[1918] 1 KB 205

Cited By (1)

[2025] SGHC 225
CHANG JIUNN JYE v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Referenced in

Legal concepts & references

Civil Procedure — Summary judgment Credit and Security — Money and moneylenders

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 101)