ONG KEH CHOO v PAUL HUNTINGTON BERNARDO & Anor

ONG KEH CHOO v PAUL HUNTINGTON BERNARDO & Anor

Because the defendants raised plausible and coherent defences (possible fraud and failure of consideration) and there were factual disputes about whether the cheque constituted consideration for the option, summary judgment was inappropriate and the defendants were granted unconditional leave to defend.

Citation
[2018] SGHC 175
Parties
Plaintiff; Defendant in Counterclaim: Ong Keh Choo; Defendant; Plaintiff in Counterclaim: Paul Huntington Bernardo; Defendant; Plaintiff in Counterclaim: Tran Hong Hanh
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
31 July 2018
Case Number
HC/S 258/2018 ( HC/SUM 3201/2018,HC/RA 174/2018 )
Procedural Posture
Civil Summary Judgment (high Court) / Decision on Registrar's Appeal and Summary Judgment Application
Outcome
Appeal allowed; defendants given unconditional leave to defend; summary judgment refused.
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Dishonoured Cheque, Option to Purchase, Failure of Consideration, Fraud in Inducement
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Bills of Exchange Contract Equity Property Summary Judgment Dishonoured Cheque Option to Purchase +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ong Keh Choo

Plaintiff; Defendant in Counterclaim

Paul Huntington Bernardo

Defendant; Plaintiff in Counterclaim

Tran Hong Hanh

Defendant; Plaintiff in Counterclaim

Procedural Posture

Civil Summary Judgment (high Court) / Decision on Registrar's Appeal and Summary Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defendants have a plausible defence to an action on a dishonoured cheque
  2. 2 Whether the cheque was given as consideration for the option to purchase
  3. 3 Whether alleged non-disclosure or fraud vitiated the contract and justified countermanding the cheque

Ratio Decidendi

Because the defendants raised plausible and coherent defences (possible fraud and failure of consideration) and there were factual disputes about whether the cheque constituted consideration for the option, summary judgment was inappropriate and the defendants were granted unconditional leave to defend.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; defendants given unconditional leave to defend; summary judgment refused.

Orders

  • Appeal allowed and defendants given unconditional leave to defend
  • Costs here and below to be costs in the cause