POA Recovery Pte Ltd v Yau Kwok Seng
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Belinda Ang Saw Ean JAD,Woo Bih Li JAD,Quentin Loh JAD |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 2022 |
| Court | High Court |
| Docket Number | Civil Appeals Nos 26 and 34 of 2021 |
[2022] SGHC(A) 7
Belinda Ang Saw Ean JAD, Woo Bih Li JAD and Quentin Loh JAD
Civil Appeals Nos 26 and 34 of 2021
Appellate Division of the High Court
Contract — Illegality and public policy — Maintenance and champerty
Tort — Misrepresentation — Fraud and deceit
POA Recovery Pte Ltd v Yau Kwok Seng [2022] SGHC(A) 2 (refd)
Ong Tun Wei Danny, Chow Chao Wu Jansen, Teo Jason, Chan Kit Munn ClaudiaandChen Lixin (Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP) for the appellant in Civil Appeal No 26 of 2021;
Ho Pei Shien Melanie, Lim Xian Yong Alvin, Gavin Neo Jia ChengandKhoo Kiah Min Jolyn (WongPartnership LLP) for the respondents in Civil Appeals Nos 26 and 34 of 2021;
Zhuo Jiaxiang and Loo Yinglin Bestlyn (Providence Law Asia LLC) for the appellants in Civil Appeal No 34 of 2021.
18 February 2022
Judgment reserved.
Belinda Ang Saw Ean JAD (delivering the judgment of the court):
1 We issue this supplemental judgment to our earlier decision in POA Recovery Pte Ltd v Yau Kwok Seng and others and another appeal[2022] SGHC(A) 2 (“the Judgment”). We adopt all abbreviations and terms of reference used in the Judgment. This court recently received information on the total amount of security for costs (“SFC”) that POA Recovery had furnished up to the end of trial. This supplemental judgment deals with the information received and [92] and [93] of the Judgment.
2 The Judgment was delivered on 3 February 2022. On 4 February 2022, counsel for the respondents, WongPartnership LLP (“WongPartnership”), wrote a letter to the court to draw the court's attention to the following:
(a) POA Recovery had furnished S$500,000, not S$430,000, in SFC, contrary to what was stated at [92] of the Judgment; and
(b) such SFC had been provided up to the end of trial, and not up to the stage of the exchange of affidavits of evidence-in-chief (“AEICs”).
To be specific, it appears that SFC provided up to exchange of AEICs was only S$250,000, and that an additional sum of S$250,000 was by agreement furnished by POA Recovery for the period after exchange of AEICs up to the end of trial (“the additional SFC”).
3 On 10 February 2022, counsel for POA Recovery, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, confirmed WongPartnership's...
To continue reading
Request your trial