WANG PIAO V LEE WEE CHING

[2023] SGHC 277 High Court (General Division) 3 October 2023 HC/OC 406/2022 ( HC/RA 78/2023 )

15 cases cited (14 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 2 cases

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	3 October 2023
Judge	Goh Yihan
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure
Counsel	Braddell Brothers LLP, K&L Gates Straits Law LLC, Trident Law Corporation, Chan Yu Jie, Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin, Kronenburg Edmund Jerome, Lim Yanqing Esther Candice, Lokman Hakim bin Mohamed Rafi, Mohamad Hasbu Haneef bin Abdul Malik, Narayanan Sreenivasan, Partheban Pandiyan, Tan Lai Tian Timothy, Tang Kai Qing, Thrumurgan s/o Ramapiram

Source: [2023] SGHC 277, High Court (General Division), decided 3 October 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Summary judgment

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure

Judges (1)

Goh Yihan Delivered

Counsel (14)

Braddell Brothers LLP Firm K&L Gates Straits Law LLC Firm Trident Law Corporation Firm Chan Yu Jie Counsel for the claimant Jerrie Tan Qiu Lin Counsel for the defendant Kronenburg Edmund Jerome Counsel for the claimant Lim Yanqing Esther Candice Counsel for the claimant Lokman Hakim bin Mohamed Rafi Counsel for the defendant Mohamad Hasbu Haneef bin Abdul Malik Counsel for the defendant Narayanan Sreenivasan Counsel for the defendant

Partheban Pandiyan Counsel for the defendant

Tan Lai Tian Timothy Counsel for the defendant Tang Kai Qing Counsel for the claimant Thrumurgan s/o Ramapiram Counsel for the defendant

Parties (2)

Lee Wee Ching Defendant Wang Piao Claimant

Case Significance

Wang Piao v Lee Wee Ching [2023] SGHC 277 is a judgment of Goh Yihan JC in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 3 October 2023 in Originating Claim No 406 of 2022 (Registrar's Appeal No 78 of 2023). The defendant appealed against Assistant Registrar Paul Tan's decision in HC/SUM 104/2023 granting summary judgment for the claimant, who characterised his claim as one for payment of a contractual sum under a written agreement; the defendant contended the transferred funds were instead to let the claimant "piggyback" on the defendant's transaction to acquire a Vantage Rapid Thermal Processing Unit. Goh Yihan JC dismissed the appeal and upheld the Assistant Registrar's decision to grant summary judgment.

Summary

Wang Piao sued Lee Wee Ching for payment under a written loan agreement, and an Assistant Registrar granted summary judgment in Wang's favour. Lee appealed, arguing the funds were transferred so Wang could 'piggyback' on Lee's transaction to acquire a Vantage Rapid Thermal Processing Unit rather than as a genuine loan. Goh Yihan JC held that Lee had not shown any real or bona fide defence to the claim for unrepaid moneys, and dismissed the appeal, affirming the summary judgment.

What was Wang Piao v Lee Wee Ching [2023] SGHC 277 about?

It was the defendant's Registrar's Appeal before Goh Yihan JC against Assistant Registrar Paul Tan's grant of summary judgment for the claimant Wang Piao, on a claim for a contractual sum under a written agreement, decided on 3 October 2023.

How did the court rule on the summary judgment appeal in [2023] SGHC 277?

Goh Yihan JC dismissed the defendant's appeal and upheld Assistant Registrar Paul Tan's decision in HC/SUM 104/2023 to grant summary judgment in favour of the claimant, rejecting the defendant's "piggyback" characterisation of the transferred funds.

Cases Cited (15)

SG (2)

[2023] SGHC 216 [2023] SGHC 5

SLR (12)

[1991] 2 SLR(R) 635 [1998] 1 SLR(R) 53 [2014] 2 SLR 123 [2014] 2 SLR 1342 [2014] 2 SLR 1371 [2015] 1 SLR 325 [2016] 4 SLR 728 [2016] 5 SLR 848 [2019] 4 SLR 692 [2021] 5 SLR 1202 [2022] 1 SLR 671 [2022] 2 SLR 314

MY (1)

[1992] 1 MLJ 400