Ka Shin Technologies (S) Pte Ltd v The Estate of Tan Kiat Lan

Ka Shin Technologies (S) Pte Ltd (KST), a precision engineering company, appealed in Civil Appeal No 89 of 2025 against the dismissal of its claim in Suit No 737 of 2019 against its former Marketing Manager, Ms Tan Kiat Lan (Doreen). Doreen died a few days after the writ was served, and her estate was substituted as defendant. KST had settled with its supplier Integrated Power Solutions Pte Ltd (IPS) and discontinued its claim against it.

It was undisputed that Doreen ran a scheme with IPS. She caused KST to issue purchase orders to IPS, tagged to genuine customer orders and priced below what customers paid; IPS supplied nothing but invoiced KST; Doreen confirmed delivery so that KST paid IPS; and she asked IPS to pay her 90% of what it received. KST was paid by its customers for all the transactions. The trial judge found that in 27 of the 236 pleaded transactions another supplier had actually supplied the goods, so KST paid twice and lost $27,955; but it had received $60,000 from IPS under the settlement, so it recovered nothing more. For the other 209 transactions, the judge found KST had not proved any genuine supply by another supplier and so had not shown double payment or loss.

1. Whether KST proved that it suffered loss in respect of the 209 transactions
2. Whether the evidence of KST's customers established genuine supply and double billing
3. Whether KST could recover its loss on the 27 transactions from the estate despite its settlement with IPS

The court held that KST bore the burden of proving its loss and had not done so for the 209 transactions. For the 27 transactions it had produced purchase orders, invoices and delivery orders from the genuine supplier, showing it could produce such records where genuine supply existed. For the 209, there was no such paper trail. A check of 30 sample orders in KST's own accounting system showed only IPS as supplier except in transactions already among the 27; more than eight months of further searching produced only five sample transactions that did not show genuine supply; and KST's own witnesses could not say that the 209 involved genuine supply. KST's argument that Doreen manipulated the system was a bare assertion, and in any event payments to any genuine supplier would have left bank or cheque records.

The customer witnesses had no personal knowledge of deliveries and relied on tables, not business records, so their evidence was hearsay outside the business records exception. Even if admitted, it did not show that KST paid a genuine supplier. KST had avoided alleging double billing and called the genuine/non-genuine distinction a red herring, but it could not explain how it lost money when customers paid it more than it paid IPS. The court noted that any liability KST might have to customers for non-delivery was not the case run, and an indemnity for unclaimed liabilities might have been premature.

On the 27 transactions, the settlement did not release Doreen from liability, but KST could not recover more than its loss. Having received $60,000 from IPS as compensation for those very losses, and relying on no exception, KST was barred by the rule against double recovery.

The Appellate Division (Woo Bih Li, Kannan Ramesh and Debbie Ong Siew Ling JJAD) dismissed the appeal, with costs to the estate fixed at $35,000 inclusive of disbursements and the usual consequential orders.