KA SHIN TECHNOLOGIES (S) PTE LTD v THE ESTATE OF TAN KIAT LAN
7 cases cited
(4 SG, 3 foreign)
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Counsel (5)
Case Significance
Decided on 24 April 2026 by the Appellate Division of the High Court — comprising Woo Bih Li JAD (delivering the grounds), Kannan Ramesh JAD, and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD — this appeal arose from a claim by Ka Shin Technologies (S) Pte Ltd (KST) against the estate of its former Marketing Manager, Tan Kiat Lan (Doreen), who was alleged to have orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to siphon customer payments from KST in collusion with one of its suppliers, Integrated Power Solutions Pte Ltd. The central question on appeal was whether KST could recover damages equal to the siphoned sum despite being unable to demonstrate a demonstrable net loss — for instance, because the siphoned amounts represented customer advance payments for goods not yet delivered.
The Appellate Division answered in the negative, reaffirming that a claimant must sufficiently prove both the existence and quantum of its loss. The court applied and invoked the Evidence Act in its reasoning, referencing 7 authorities (4 Singapore, 3 foreign). Appellant KST was represented by Oei Ai Hoea Anna of Tan, Oei & Oei LLC; the respondent estate was represented by Sandra Lye Hui Wen and Terence Tan KY Won of Genesis Law Corporation. The underlying suit was HC/S 737/2019.
Summary
SUPREME COURT OF SINGAPORE
24 April 2026
Case summary
Ka Shin Technologies (S) Pte Ltd v The Estate of Tan Kiat Lan, deceased [2026] SGHC(A) 12
Appellate Division of the High Court – Civil Appeal No 89 of 2025
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Decision of the Appellate Division of the High Court (delivered by Justice Woo Bih Li):
Outcome: The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, upholding the High Court’s finding that the appellant had not proved the existence and quantum of its loss necessary to succeed in its claim.
Pertinent and significant points of the judgment
• The Appellate Division reaffirmed the principle that a claimant must prove the existence and quantum of its loss to succeed in its claim: at [1].
• The appellant failed to discharge its burden of proving its loss, as it did not provide adequate documentary evidence demonstrating that it had suffered loss as a result of the fraud, and the adduced evidence in the form of witness testimony was not only inadmissible but also insufficient as it did not directly prove that the appellant had suffered loss: at [33]–[50].
• The Appellate Division noted that the appellant did not claim an indemnity from the respondent for any potential liability to third parties. In any case, the applicable case law suggested that where a third party had not yet made a claim against a plaintiff, it would not be appropriate to order a defendant to indemnify the plaintiff against such a potential liability: at [51]–[53].
• The Appellate Division upheld the principle against double recovery. The court accepted that whilst a settlement agreement between the appellant and another party to the fraudulent scheme did not release the respondent from liability, it prevented the appellant from recovering damages from the respondent for the same loss and injury for which it had already been compensated by another party. Further, none of the exceptions to the rule against double recovery were applicable: at [54]–[58].
1 This was an appeal against the dismissal of the appellant’s claim against the respondent on the basis that the latter had orchestrated a fraudulent scheme to siphon money from the appellant in collusion with another party. The central issue was whether the appellant had sufficiently proved the existence and quantum of its loss exceeding the amount already recovered from the other fraudulent party through a settlement agreement: at [1]–[2].
Background to the appeal
2 The appellant, Ka Shin Technologies (S) Pte Ltd ("KST"), brought a claim against its former Marketing Manager, Ms Tan Kiat Lan ("Doreen"). KST alleged that Doreen had orchestrated a fraudulent scheme (“Scheme”) to siphon money from KST in collusion with its supplier, Integrated Power Solutions Pte Ltd ("IPS"). As Doreen had passed away shortly after the writ was filed, her estate was substituted as respondent: at [2], [6].
3 KST initially sued IPS but discontinued its suit following a settlement agreement for $60,000: at [8], [13].
4 A judge of the General Division of the High Court (“Judge”) found that the Scheme existed but determined that KST had suffered loss on only 27 of the 236 fraudulent transactions pleaded, for which it had already been compensated through the settlement agreement with IPS. As KST had not proved its loss for the remaining 209 transactions, it was not entitled to damages: at [3], [13].
The material facts
5 The Scheme began sometime around 2012 and operated as follows: Customer representatives from three of KST's customers generated purchase orders in KST’s favour. Doreen then caused corresponding fraudulent KST purchase orders to be issued to IPS instead of any other supplier. However, IPS did not supply any goods but issued invoices and delivery orders to charge KST. Leveraging her authority as marketing manager, Doreen then authorised KST to pay IPS by acknowledging the invoices and delivery orders, thereby indicating that KST had received goods from IPS. KST would then pay IPS, and Doreen would request that IPS pay her 90% of the payment received. Throughout this process, KST received payment from the three customers for all transactions in question: at [9], [12].
The court’s decision
6 The Appellate Division upheld the Judge’s finding that KST failed to prove its losses for the 209 transactions. Since KST’s customers had paid for these transactions, KST would only suffer loss if it paid out more than it received from customers. Thus, to prove loss for each transaction, KST had to demonstrate it was double-billed, which required it to prove that there was a genuine supply for that transaction. However, where no genuine supply existed, KST was only billed once by IPS while customers paid for undelivered goods, hence the loss fell on KST’s customers rather than KST itself: at [16]–[18], [50].
7 KST had failed to adduce any corroborating evidence that there was genuine supply to it and that it had been double-billed in respect of the 209 transactions. The absence of documentary evidence was particularly telling given that KST had no trouble proving genuine supply and double billing for the 27 transactions: at [34]–[35].
8 Further, a detailed check of 30 sample customer purchase orders in KST’s database system revealed that there was no genuine supply and double billing for the 209 transactions: at [36].
9 Despite being given more than eight months to search for and produce documentation proving genuine supply and double billing for the 209 transactions, KST still could not produce cogent evidence: at [37]–[38].
10 Given the presence of internal approval and payment processes, which required multiple levels of documentation, the court was of the view that there would have been a paper trail if there was genuine supply and double billing. Further, witnesses from KST also appeared to acknowledge that they did not have personal knowledge about whether KST had received genuine supply and been double-billed in respect of those transactions: at [39]–[41].
11 Finally, KST sought to rely on witness testimony from its customers stating that they had received genuine supply from KST. However, the court rejected their testimony for two reasons. First, as they did not personally witness receipt of goods, their evidence constituted hearsay and they could not avail themselves of the business records exception under s 32(1)(b) of the Evidence Act 1893 (2020 Rev Ed). Second, even if admissible, the evidence would carry limited weight because KST needed to establish that it had been double-billed rather than that its customers had received their supply ordered, but it failed to do so: at [48]–[49].
12 The court noted that if there was no delivery of goods to KST's customers for the 209 transactions, KST would be in breach of its contracts and exposed to potential liability to these customers. One possibility would be a claim by KST for an indemnity from the estate against such a liability. However, that was not the basis of KST’s claim against the estate. KST asserted it had supplied the goods for the 209 transactions, hence the loss claimed was the moneys siphoned by Doreen rather than liability to KST’s customers. In any case, Freight Connect (S) Pte Ltd v Paragon Shipping Pte Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 178 suggested that where a third party had not yet made a claim against a plaintiff, it would not be appropriate to order a defendant to indemnify the plaintiff against a potential liability to the third party: at [51]–[53].
13 Finally, the court upheld the principle against double recovery. Whilst the settlement agreement between the appellant and IPS did not release the respondent from liability, it prevented the appellant from recovering damages from the respondent for the same loss and injury for which it had already been compensated. Further, none of the exceptions to the rule against double recovery were applicable: at [54]–[58].
This summary is provided to assist in the understanding of the Court’s grounds of decision. It is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court. All numbers in bold font and square brackets refer to the corresponding paragraph numbers in the Court’s grounds of decision.
What did the Appellate Division decide in Ka Shin Technologies v Estate of Tan Kiat Lan [2026] SGHC(A) 12?
The Appellate Division, led by Woo Bih Li JAD, held that Ka Shin Technologies could not recover damages for sums siphoned by its former Marketing Manager where no demonstrable loss was proven, reaffirming that a claimant must prove both the existence and quantum of loss. Decision delivered 24 April 2026.
Who were the judges and counsel in Ka Shin Technologies (S) Pte Ltd v The Estate of Tan Kiat Lan [2026] SGHC(A) 12?
Woo Bih Li JAD delivered the grounds, sitting with Kannan Ramesh JAD and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JAD. Oei Ai Hoea Anna of Tan, Oei & Oei LLC acted for the appellant; Sandra Lye Hui Wen and Terence Tan KY Won of Genesis Law Corporation acted for the respondent estate.
Statutes Cited
Evidence Act (Cap 97)
Cases Cited (7)
SG (1)
SLR (3)
[1999] 3 SLR(R) 543 [2015] 5 SLR 178 [2024] 1 SLR 964
UK (3)
[1952] 2 QB 297 [1996] AC 514 [2002] 2 AC 329
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2026] SGHC(A) 12)