See Kok Eng v Eng Sieh Mei

The defendant, Eng Sieh Mei, holds 90% of Marylebone Pte Ltd, a food products company; her sister holds the rest. The claimant, See Kok Eng, met her around the end of 2022 and they discussed his investing in Marylebone. He said he was prepared to invest $100,000 for 51% if the business was viable. In January 2023 he paid $30,000 to Marylebone, which is not part of this claim.

In Magistrate's Court Originating Claim No 8303 of 2024, the claimant sued to recover $27,166 that he paid the defendant by cheque on 5 June 2023, saying it was a loan made under an oral agreement after he agreed to fund half of a stock payment. He said he later decided not to invest because she gave him no financial documents and the business proved unviable. The defendant denied any loan. She said the parties made a partnership agreement on 8 March 2023, recorded in a handwritten note the claimant drafted and both signed, under which he would pay for Marylebone's stock and invest $100,000, and that the $27,166 was paid under that agreement.

1. Whether the parties entered into a binding agreement on 8 March 2023 for the claimant to invest in Marylebone.
2. Whether the $27,166 was a loan repayable to the claimant or a payment under that agreement.

The claimant bore the burden of proving a loan. The court noted that the chat extracts were partial and the translations not always coherent, so its findings were limited to what was put before it. The January documents showed only negotiations. But the 8 March note, read with the defendant's own note of that date and an exchange in which the claimant said he would definitely use money to buy the goods, showed he agreed to pay for stock and invest $100,000. The note did not need to set out every term; the 51% stake appeared elsewhere and matched the claimant's own evidence, and the sister's absence did not make the deal unworkable given the defendant's 90% holding.

The claimant's assertion that his investment depended on receiving documents was not supported: messages suggested documents were sent, he kept pressing ahead, and nothing showed he told her he would not invest. Later messages showed no further negotiation and the defendant asking for his identity card to register him. The 4 June 2023 messages concerned helping the sister with tax, not a promise to repay. Payment to the defendant personally was equivocal. Even without a binding agreement, the money appeared to be paid in anticipation of investment, not lent.

The court dismissed the claim in full, finding that the claimant had not proved that the $27,166 was a loan. It made no findings on the defendant's belated claim for losses, as she had brought no counterclaim, and directed submissions on costs if the parties could not agree.