DOTS N TOTS INTERIOR PTE.LTD. v LIEW YEW LIAN & Anor

Facts

Dots N Tots Interior Pte Ltd, a renovation firm, employed Mr Liew Yew Lian from 2016, first as a sales designer and commission agent and later as a project manager with authority to engage subcontractors. In late 2021 the company found that he had engaged his own company, LMG Design and Build Pte Ltd, to do reinforced concrete works on two projects at Jalan Grisek. Its directors confronted him at a coffee shop meeting on 12 January 2022, and his employment was terminated on 18 January 2022. The company demanded repayment of loans of $200,836 and sent a debt recovery agent to his home. He paid $100,000 and $100,836 by cashier's orders and later $80,000 by cheque on 24 February 2022.

In District Court Originating Claim No. 244 of 2022 the company claimed that he had orally agreed to bear losses of $284,575.30 on the two projects in return for not being sued, and sued for the balance after the $80,000 payment; it also pleaded a conspiracy claim. Mr Liew counterclaimed for unpaid commission of 50% of net profit on projects he managed, and for the return of the $80,000 and $200,836 on the ground of duress, alleging threats about bankruptcy and gangsters. LMG counterclaimed $9,724.16 on an unpaid invoice.

Issues

1. Whether the company proved an oral agreement by Mr Liew to bear the alleged project losses.
2. Whether Mr Liew could recover unpaid commission computed from the company's own documents despite pleading lower figures.
3. Whether the payments of $80,000 and $200,836 were made under duress and should be returned.
4. Whether LMG was entitled to payment of its invoice.

Holding

District Judge Vince Gui dismissed the company's claim in full. He allowed Mr Liew's commission counterclaim in part, in the sum of $356,397, and dismissed his duress counterclaims. He allowed LMG's counterclaim of $9,724.16. Costs of $50,000 to Mr Liew and $6,000 to LMG were ordered, as the company had proposed. The company has appealed.

Reasoning

The conspiracy claim appeared abandoned and lacked merit, as the company's own documents showed the concrete works were profitable, which its director admitted. The oral agreement rested on bare assertions; the $80,000 payment, probably made under confusion and pressure, did not prove agreement to bear a vastly different sum.

The commission entitlement was undisputed, and the company's claim that the projects were unprofitable rested on unreliable statements of account. Mr Liew's revised figures, based on the company's own disclosed records, exceeded his pleaded figures, but following How Weng Fan and others v Sengkang Town Council and other appeals [2023] 2 SLR 235 the court could consider an unpleaded point absent irreparable prejudice. The company held all the records, was cross-examined on the figures, and never rebutted them. The judge capped the award at the pleaded total of $491,397, less the $135,000 of advances Mr Liew admitted. Section 54E(4) of the State Courts Act 1970 permitted the District Court to try a counterclaim above its limit.

The duress allegations were bare, inconsistent with his testimony, unreported to police, and followed by payment over a month later; threatening legal proceedings or using a debt collector was not illegitimate pressure. He had acknowledged the loans. LMG's invoice was in the agreed bundle and not shown to be paid.

From the judgment