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

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

I therefore dismissed the appeal.

Source: [2024] SGHC 101, High Court (General Division), decided 12 April 2024. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	12 April 2024
Judge	Kwek Mean Luck
Charges / claim	Credit And Security, Civil Procedure
Outcome	Appeal dismissed
Counsel	David Nayar and Associates, Chng He Han, David Nayar, Elsie Lim Yan, Koh Weijin Leon

Source: [2024] SGHC 101, High Court (General Division), decided 12 April 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

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.

[2024] SGHC 101 explained

VICTOR FOO YONG SIANG v TAN HENG KHOON ([2024] SGHC 101) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 12 April 2024. It is categorised under Credit And Security and Civil Procedure. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC 101 about?

VICTOR FOO YONG SIANG v TAN HENG KHOON ([2024] SGHC 101) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Credit And Security — Money and moneylenders — Loans of money”, “Credit And Security — Money and moneylenders — Illegal moneylending”, and “Civil Procedure — Summary judgment — Threshold of triable issues”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

How influential is [2024] SGHC 101?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC 101 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

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.