Ronald Setiawan v Hun Ming Kwang

Facts

Ronald Setiawan, the claimant, sued Hun Ming Kwang, the defendant, in District Court Suit No 899 of 2025 for the return of money. The defendant was the sole proprietor of Divine Mastery Consultancy, through which he ran courses on inner work, coaching and consciousness training, and the claimant was his student. It was undisputed that the claimant paid him S$38,434.41 in May 2024 to buy a statue and S$330,000 in July and August 2024 as a course fee. There was no written agreement. The claimant limited his claim to S$250,000, the District Court's limit, and applied by Summons No 1500 of 2025 for summary judgment under Order 9, Rule 17 of the Rules of Court 2021.

The claimant said the statue was never bought and that, having decided not to go ahead with the courses, he was entitled to a refund of the course fee, which he said covered courses from 2024 to 2026. The defendant contended that the statue was bought as a gift to him, and relied on an untranslated Thai document he described as a receipt and a Messenger message about a remittance to Thailand. He said the course fee paid for personal training during a retreat in Florida in July 2024 and for a crystal orgonite top and a drum.

Issues

1. Whether the claimant had established a prima facie case for the return of the statue sum and the course fee
2. Whether the defendant had shown a bona fide defence, or one of a dubious nature warranting conditions
3. Whether a condition of payment into court was appropriate and not onerous for the defendant

Holding

The Deputy Registrar granted the defendant conditional leave to defend under O9 r17(7)(d) of the Rules of Court 2021, and ordered that the condition be that the defendant pay $80,000 into court by 5 November 2025. Summary judgment was therefore not entered.

Reasoning

On the prima facie case, the court found the claimant had clearly made one out. For the statue sum, the transfer for the undisputed purpose of buying a statue was enough. For the course fee, the claimant's bank statement showed two transfers of S$165,000 labelled "PrivateTraining2024-2025" and "PrivateTraining2025-2026", which supported his pleaded case.

On the defence, the court found several aspects lacked substance. The supposed receipt was blurry and untranslated, so it could not be confirmed as a receipt for this statue, and the remittance of THB 1,249,000 did not match the receipt's total of 1,169,000. No photograph of the statue was produced, though the defendant said it was his. There was no evidence for the claimed additional training, though the defendant gave some photographic evidence that a drum and an orgonite top were bought at the claimant's request. Applying Riztland Investment Pte Ltd v Grace Management & Consultancy Services Pte Ltd [2014] 2 SLR 1342, the burden shifted to the defendant once a prima facie case was shown, and the defence was dubious enough to justify conditions.

On the condition, the court had to consider the defendant's financial circumstances and avoid a condition impossible to meet. $80,000 was less than a third of the claim, and given the recent transfers, the defendant would be hard pressed to claim impecuniosity; even if the statue and items were bought, he would still have retained $165,000 in course fees.

From the judgment