High Court orders car dealer to pay rival $300k after failed suit over Ferrari deal

A car dealer who sued another over a Ferrari sale failed to win damages, despite the High Court finding that the latter had falsely claimed to have found a buyer for the supercar when he had bought it himself, registering it under his girlfriend’s name.

In a further blow, the dealer who brought the suit, Wu Chong, was ordered to pay the other dealer, Ong Bee Hong, $300,000 over a separate, aborted Lamborghini deal.

Ong, however, still owed Wu $250,000 under their Ferrari sales agreement but he refused to let Wu offset the $250,000 from the $300,000 award.

Justice Kristy Tan, in a written judgment on Oct 22, described Ong’s refusal as unreasonable, and urged him and his lawyers to “act fairly and sensibly”.

The dispute involved a Ferrari 296 GTB plug-in hybrid, as well as other luxury cars, including Lamborghinis and a Bentley.

Wu had a 20% stake in the Ferrari, while 80% belonged to a man identified in court documents as Toh Wee Keong.

Toh wanted to sell the car in January 2025 and asked Wu to market it, initially targeting a price of $980,000.

Wu also approached Ong to help find a buyer, saying the desired price was between $920,000 and $980,000.

On or around Jan 15, 2025, Ong said he had found a buyer for $920,000, although this was not true. Wu then provided documents and prepared sales paperwork for the transaction.

The documents recorded a sale from his company, Allmotoring.sg, to Ong’s Trusty Leasing for $250,000 for the car body only.

This agreed price between dealers for an unregistered car excludes taxes such as the additional registration fee.

A second agreement recorded a sale from Trusty to Orizon Motorcycles for $260,000, also for the car body only.

The Ferrari was delivered on Jan 27, 2025, to a house in Jalan Tani.

Wu said he believed it was the ultimate buyer’s residence and felt pressured by Ong’s requests to deliver the car there. The property was, in fact, the home of Lim Soon Heng Terence, Orizon’s sole director and shareholder.

The car was later registered in the name of Ong’s girlfriend Pee Hwee Kim on Feb 11, 2025, with a $348,000 hire-purchase loan.

Ong told the court the Ferrari was actually his.

He used his girlfriend’s name because he had previously been bankrupt and it was easier to obtain financing that way. He added that he paid the loan instalments.

In October 2025, Pee sold the Ferrari for $878,000, receiving $557,946.62 in net proceeds after the loan was redeemed.

She transferred $400,000 to Ong, and kept $157,946.62 to partly offset a personal loan of $180,000 that Ong owed her.

Wu later sued Ong, Lim and Pee, alleging deceit, misrepresentation, conversion, conspiracy and unjust enrichment.

Tan found that Ong had falsely claimed in January 2025 that he had found a buyer willing to pay $920,000 for the Ferrari, which led Wu to hand over documents and transfer the car.

But she dismissed Wu’s claims as he could not prove he had lost money as a result.

He did not show that another buyer would have paid at least $920,000, or provide enough evidence to establish the car’s value had Ong not made the false claim.

Tan noted that even Ong and Pee eventually sold the car for $878,000.

The judge cited a Court of Appeal reminder that a claimant must prove both the existence and amount of damage.

Failing that, even a claim that might otherwise have succeeded could fail, and the claimant could find that, after incurring legal costs, “the game has not been worth the candle”.

In the lawsuit, Ong had counter-claimed for $300,000 paid to Wu as a deposit for an orange Lamborghini Urus in a transaction that was later aborted.

Wu argued that the sum had been offset by money Ong owed him from other vehicle transactions involving another Lamborghini and a Bentley, but the judge found that Wu had not established the alleged set-offs.

Ong therefore succeeded in his counter-claim for the full $300,000.

However, the judge noted that both men accepted that the $250,000 Ferrari sales agreement was genuine and legally binding. Ong consequently remained legally obliged to pay Wu that sum.

Tan asked Ong’s lawyer whether the $250,000 could be deducted from the $300,000 award, leaving Ong with a net recovery of $50,000. Ong refused, arguing that Wu had neither claimed the Ferrari purchase price nor pleaded that it should be set off against the counter-claim.

The judge conceded: “Nevertheless, however unreasonable I may consider Ong’s position, I cannot say that it is legally wrong.”

She added that she was constrained by the cases the parties had put before her and ordered Wu to pay the full $300,000.

“This outcome is not wholly satisfactory in that it does not tie up the loose end of Ong’s outstanding obligation to pay Wu $250,000 under the $250,000 sales agreement,” she noted.

She added that nothing stopped Ong from honouring that obligation, even without a court order expressly enforcing it, including by taking it into account when deciding how much of the judgment debt to enforce.

“I exhort Ong to, and Ong’s counsel to do better in advising him to act fairly and sensibly in this regard,” she said.

Wu’s claims were dismissed in full. He was represented by Phoenix Law Corporation, while Ong, Lim and Pee were represented by Nine Yards Chambers.

Wu Chong v Ong Bee Hong and others [2026] SGHC 222

Source: The Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Singapore will form panel of experts to help investigations into haze-linked firms