1. CITATION OF THE CASE
Name: Tan Peng Quee v Shirley Kathreyn Yap. Feb. 22, 2012. C J Siew (S Y Chew with him) (Douglas Yee)
Page 314
2. FACTS OF THE CASE
The salient facts of the plaintiffs claim, as set out in her written submission is as follows:
(a) The plaintiff went into a partnership named Eres Tu No. 2 Stable CET2") with two other partners namely a horse trainer named Malcolm and the defendant, who was Malcolm's nominee. This partnership was registered with the Malayan Racing Association ("MRA") which is the controlling body of Horse Racing in the Turf Clubs in Malaysia and Singapore;
(b) The defendant was registered as the manager of ET2 with MRA and in such capacity; she received winnings won by ET2 horses during the period of 1994-2003;
(c) Over the years, the plaintiff on a few occasions received from the defendant his 1/3 share of horses' winnings;
(d) The partnership was dissolved in 2005. However, it was only sometime in 2009 that the plaintiff learnt from Malcolm that Malcolm had just found out that the defendant had collected about RM1,782,965.00 and that she had fraudulently concealed the truth of the matter and converted to her use all winnings received by her on trust for all the partners and which she had retained without accounting to all the partners;
The defendant contends as follows:
(i) The date of commencement of the plaintiff's cause of action must be the dates on which the plaintiff alleged that the defendant had failed to account and in this regard the plaintiff had pleaded in general that the defendant has failed to account for the period 1994-2003, i.e. asking the defendant to produce accounting records dating back 16 years. By virtue of s.6 (2) of the Act, the plaintiff's claim is time barred.
(ii) Furthermore, the plaintiffs claim is also barred by reason of laches and/or acquiescence on the part of the plaintiff.
The