Ronald Setiawan v Hun Ming Kwang

Ronald Setiawan v Hun Ming Kwang

Claimant established a prima facie case for return of monies; the defendant's evidence is equivocal and internally inconsistent (untranslated blurry Thai document, remittance total mismatching the receipt, lack of photographic evidence of the statue, no proof of S$165,000 additional training), rendering the defence of dubious character; accordingly conditional leave to defend was granted under O9 r17(7)(d) on payment of S$80,000 into court by the specified date as a proportionate, non‑onerous security.

Citation
[2025] SGDC 320
Parties
Claimant: Ronald Setiawan; Defendant: Hun Ming Kwang
Court
District Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
12 December 2025
Case Number
DC/OC 899/2025 ( DC/SUM 1500/2025 )
Procedural Posture
District Court Suit (summary Judgment Application Under Order 9 Rule 17, Rules of Court 2021) / Hearing of Summary Judgment Application; Conditional Leave to Defend Granted
Outcome
Conditional leave to defend granted under Order 9 Rule 17(7)(d) of the Rules of Court 2021; summary judgment not entered
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Conditional Leave to Defend, Payment Into Court, Return of Monies, Prima Facie Case, Burden of Proof
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Contract Restitution/unjust Enrichment Summary Judgment Conditional Leave to Defend Payment Into Court Return of Monies Prima Facie Case +1 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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Setiawan

Claimant

Hun Ming Kwang

Defendant

Procedural Posture

District Court Suit (summary Judgment Application Under Order 9 Rule 17, Rules of Court 2021) / Hearing of Summary Judgment Application; Conditional Leave to Defend Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant established a prima facie case for return of monies paid for a statue and courses
  2. 2 Whether the defendant has a bona fide defence to the claim
  3. 3 Whether the court should grant conditional leave to defend and, if so, on what financial condition

Ratio Decidendi

Claimant established a prima facie case for return of monies; the defendant's evidence is equivocal and internally inconsistent (untranslated blurry Thai document, remittance total mismatching the receipt, lack of photographic evidence of the statue, no proof of S$165,000 additional training), rendering the defence of dubious character; accordingly conditional leave to defend was granted under O9 r17(7)(d) on payment of S$80,000 into court by the specified date as a proportionate, non‑onerous security.

Court Disposition

Conditional leave to defend granted under Order 9 Rule 17(7)(d) of the Rules of Court 2021; summary judgment not entered

Orders

  • Defendant to pay S$80,000 into court by 5 November 2025
  • Leave to defend granted subject to the payment into court; no summary judgment entered