Deceased's family ordered to refund $340k to coffee shop boss who invested in used car business

A coffee shop operator who invested more than $500,000 in a used car business with a friend but got only a partial refund of his capital after he pulled out of the venture, sued his business partner’s family following the man’s death.

Mr Wong Shu Kiat, who ran coffee shops in Serangoon and Sin Ming, had served a letter of demand on Mr Tin Koon Ming on July 7, 2020, for the outstanding sum. Unfortunately, Mr Tin died that same day.

Mr Wong followed up with a letter to Mr Tin’s family. When he did not receive payment, he sued Mr Tin’s daughter, Ms Michelle Chen, who was the administrator of his estate.

On April 20, the High Court ordered Mr Tin’s estate to return about $340,000 to Mr Wong and his coffee shop company, Wan Jin.

Mr Wong and Mr Tin, who was the sole proprietor of Millenia Motor, had been friends for more than 15 years.

They first met at Mr Wong’s Sin Ming coffee shop and became part of a group of mutual friends who regularly gathered for meals.

Mr Wong said that in 2016, Mr Tin approached him to discuss a business venture involving the purchase and sale of used cars.

He said they entered into a joint venture agreement, where he provided capital while Mr Tin provided the premises, equipment and labour.

Under the agreement, Mr Tin and Mr Wong would share the profits and losses in the proportion of 60 per cent to 40 per cent, and Mr Wong would be refunded his capital, after accounting for losses, when the venture is terminated.

Mr Wong said he invested a total of $517,047.27 in the venture by issuing three cheques from Wan Jin in December 2016.

One cheque for $336,547.27 was used to acquire a used Bentley to kickstart the joint venture, while the other two were paid into Millenia’s bank account.

In December 2018, he told Mr Tin he wished to terminate the joint venture and demanded repayment of his capital. Mr Tin repaid him only $130,000, said Mr Wong.

He said Mr Tin made several proposals relating to the outstanding sum, including an offer to include Mr Wong’s name in a durian plantation investment, which he rejected.

After Mr Tin’s death, Mr Wong and Wan Jin sued Ms Chen – as the administrator of Mr Tin’s estate and in her personal capacity – for repayment of $387,047.27.

Ms Chen, who was not involved in the venture, did not admit that the sum was owed by the estate.

As evidence of the joint venture, Mr Wong tendered two notebooks containing handwritten entries of transactions from December 2016 to March 2019.

Mr Wong said he and Mr Tin each kept one notebook. The entries were recorded by Mr Tin and the two men met weekly to settle the accounts. Mr Tin’s notebook was among his belongings that came into Ms Chen’s possession in March 2021.

He also tendered name cards with “Millenia Motor” printed on them, along with his name “Andy Wong” and mobile phone number.

Mr Wong also called two mutual friends – a couple Mr Tin had introduced to him in 2012 – to testify as his witnesses.

In her written judgment, Judicial Commissioner Teh Hwee Hwee said the notebooks were unequivocal evidence of the joint venture.

The notebooks contain contemporaneous records of cars that were bought and sold, details of the deals, and the profits and losses shared by the men. “Such contemporaneous evidence bears significant weight in ascertaining the existence of an oral agreement,” she noted.

The judicial commissioner found the name cards were printed for the purposes of the joint venture, and accepted the testimony of both witnesses, who she described as “neutral and straightforward”.

“When considered together, the evidence points strongly towards the existence of the alleged agreement and the joint venture. The evidence led by the plaintiffs is not rebutted by the defendants,” she said.

As for how much was owed by Mr Tin to Mr Wong, she noted that 13 entries of losses between May 2018 and March 2019 were recorded in Mr Tin’s notebook but not in Mr Wong’s.

“A reasonable inference can be made that Mr Tin intentionally omitted to inform Mr Wong of the losses in the 13 loss entries to preserve their collaboration in the light of the stress and pressures arising from the losses that had afflicted the joint venture.”

She concluded that the sum owed was $340,447.27, after deducting Mr Wong’s share of the losses which amounted to $43,600, and a $3,000 cheque that Mr Tin had issued to Mr Wong in August 2019.