Kim Hok Yung v Rabobank: Striking Out Claim for Fraudulent Misrepresentation in Employment Contract

Kim Hok Yung, along with other former Barclays employees, sued Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (Rabobank) in the High Court of Singapore, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act regarding their employment contracts. The plaintiffs claimed Rabobank induced them to leave Barclays with false representations about establishing an investment banking business. Choo Han Teck JC allowed Rabobank's appeal, striking out the plaintiffs' claims as frivolous and vexatious, citing the clear terms of the employment contracts allowing termination with notice and compensation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Former Barclays employees sued Rabobank for fraudulent misrepresentation. The court struck out the claim, finding it frivolous and vexatious due to contract terms.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Kim Hok YungPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualClaim Struck OutLost
Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (trading as Rabobank)Defendant, AppellantCorporationAppeal AllowedWon
Lee Mon SunThird PartyIndividual

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Woo Tchi ChuRobert WH Wang & Woo
Julia YeoRobert WH Wang & Woo
Lim SinRobert WH Wang & Woo
Ashok KumarAllen & Gledhill
Marcus YipAllen & Gledhill

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs were former employees of Barclays Capital Securities Asia Ltd.
  2. Defendants are an off-shore bank operating in Singapore.
  3. Plaintiffs claimed damages for fraudulent misrepresentation and innocent misrepresentation.
  4. Plaintiffs alleged defendants made false representations to induce them to leave Barclays.
  5. Plaintiffs signed employment contracts with defendants containing termination clauses.
  6. Contracts allowed termination with three months' notice and compensation.
  7. Plaintiffs were paid compensation upon termination as stipulated in their contracts.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Kim Hok Yung and Others v Cooperatieve Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (trading as Rabobank) (Lee Mon Sun, Third Party), Suit 1676/1999, 1830/1999, [2000] SGHC 134

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendants intimated to plaintiffs about establishing an investment banking business.
First plaintiff signed contract with defendants.
First plaintiff resigned from Barclays.
Second and third plaintiffs signed contracts with defendants.
Third plaintiff resigned from Barclays.
Suits commenced by plaintiffs against defendants.
First plaintiff's affidavit filed.
Appeal allowed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs had not set out sufficient particulars of the fraudulent intention and struck out the claim based on this cause of action.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to provide sufficient particulars of fraudulent intent
  2. Innocent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs' claim based on innocent misrepresentation was frivolous and vexatious and struck it out.
    • Category: Substantive
  3. Striking Out Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court struck out the plaintiffs' claims as frivolous and vexatious.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Claim frivolous or vexatious
      • Claim discloses no reasonable cause of action
      • Abuse of process of the court

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Innocent Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wenlock v MoloneyUnknownYes[1965] 2 All ER 871England and WalesCited regarding the court's objective when determining whether an action is frivolous or vexatious.
Wenlock v MoloneyUnknownYes[1965] 1 WLR 1238England and WalesCited regarding the court's objective when determining whether an action is frivolous or vexatious.
Connell v NCSCUnknownYes15 ACLR 75AustraliaCited to describe the nature of the plaintiff's claim as forlorn.
Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho ChitUnknownYes[2000] 1 SLR 517SingaporeCited for the proposition that a court should not strike out a case if the defect or deficiency in pleading could be cured by way of amendment.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
s 2(1) Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Fraudulent misrepresentation
  • Innocent misrepresentation
  • Employment contract
  • Termination clause
  • Investment banking business
  • Structured Products on Securities
  • Frivolous
  • Vexatious

15.2 Keywords

  • fraudulent misrepresentation
  • innocent misrepresentation
  • employment contract
  • striking out
  • frivolous
  • vexatious

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Striking out90
Misrepresentation85
Fraud and Deceit80
Civil Practice75
Contract Law60

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Contract Law
  • Misrepresentation
  • Employment Law