Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG: Appeal on Misrepresentation & Duty of Care in Foreign Exchange Transactions

Wee Soon Kim Anthony, the appellant, appealed against the High Court's decision dismissing his claim against UBS AG, the respondent, for damages due to losses in foreign exchange transactions. Wee alleged misrepresentation and failure to exercise care by UBS. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, on 29 July 2004, dismissed the appeal, finding no misrepresentation by UBS and no breach of duty of care. The court held that Wee was informed of the risks involved and that UBS's actions did not cause his losses.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against High Court's dismissal of Wee's claim against UBS for losses in foreign exchange transactions, alleging misrepresentation and failure to exercise care.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
UBS AGRespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedWon
Wee Soon Kim AnthonyAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Tan Lee MengJudgeNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kabir SinghDrew and Napier LLC
Davinder SinghDrew and Napier LLC
Hri KumarDrew and Napier LLC
Lim Chor PeeChor Pee and Partners

4. Facts

  1. Wee, a former senior advocate, invested in Malaysian Ringgit (MYR) through UBS.
  2. UBS officers advised Wee on foreign exchange forward contracts.
  3. Wee subscribed to the UBS Dynamic Floor Fund (DFF) strategy.
  4. Wee complained of misrepresentations regarding swap points and interest rates.
  5. The Malaysian government imposed a ban on trading MYR.
  6. Wee suffered a loss of US$4,179,509 due to the MYR transactions.
  7. Wee claimed damages for misrepresentation and breach of duty of care.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG (No 4), CA 1/2004, [2004] SGCA 33
  2. , , [2003] SGHC 305

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Wee decided to trade on the Malaysian Ringgit.
Wee instructed UBS to enter into a one-month foreign exchange forward contract.
Wee met with UBS officers to discuss his MYR/USD position.
Wee asked UBS to enter into another one-month forward contract.
RM35m was placed on a two-month deposit.
RM5m was placed on a one-month deposit.
UBS officers updated Wee on his MYR position.
UBS officers suggested Wee consider subscribing to the UBS Dynamic Floor Fund strategy.
Wee wrote to UBS regarding his understanding of the DFF strategy.
UBS officers faxed a detailed reply to Wee regarding the DFF strategy.
Koh met with Wee and Richard to discuss the DFF strategy.
Wee converted his MYR deposits into USD and invested in the DFF.
A forward contract to buy RM41,493,114.79 was entered into.
Wee instructed Koh to sell RM11,520,000.
Wee asked Koh not to proceed with the previous day’s instruction.
Wee wrote to UBS to complain about misrepresentations.
UBS advised Wee that he would stand to make a profit if he were to liquidate the DFF and exit the 12-month forward contract.
The Malaysian government imposed a ban on the trading of MYR.
Bank Negara Malaysia fixed the exchange rate for MYR at 3.80 to US$1.
Wee commenced legal proceedings against UBS.
The appeal was heard.
The appeal was dismissed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that no misrepresentation was made by UBS to Wee.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Omission of material facts
      • Inaccurate representation of interest rates
      • Failure to explain swap points
  2. Breach of Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court found no breach of duty of care by UBS.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to advise on risks
      • Negligence in managing investments
  3. Pleadings
    • Outcome: The court held that the re-re-amended statement of claim did not include the allegation that UBS had breached its duty of care in relation to the initial two purchases of RM35m and RM5m.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Amendment of pleadings
      • Sufficiency of averments

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Duty of Care in Contract
  • Breach of Duty of Care in Tort
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duties

10. Practice Areas

  • Appeals
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Banking Litigation

11. Industries

  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Teknikal dan Kejuruteraan Pte Ltd v Resources Development Corp (Pte) LtdCourt of AppealYes[1994] 3 SLR 743SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court is in as good a position as the court below to determine factual issues when evaluating the quality of evidence.
Peh Eng Leng v Pek Eng LeongN/ANo[1996] 2 SLR 305SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will not upset a finding of fact unless the determination of the trial judge is plainly wrong.
Seah Ting Soon t/a Sing Meng Co Wooden Cases Factory v Indonesian Tractors Co Pte LtdN/ANo[2001] 1 SLR 521SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court will not upset a finding of fact unless the determination of the trial judge is plainly wrong.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Malaysian Ringgit
  • Foreign Exchange Forward Contract
  • UBS Dynamic Floor Fund
  • Swap Points
  • Leveraged Deposits
  • Interest Rate Differential
  • Misrepresentation
  • Duty of Care

15.2 Keywords

  • foreign exchange
  • misrepresentation
  • duty of care
  • UBS
  • Malaysian Ringgit
  • investment
  • banking
  • financial services

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Foreign Exchange Transactions90
Misrepresentation80
Civil Procedure75
Torts70
Duty of Care65
Banking and Finance60
Commercial Law50
Contract Law40
Breach of Contract40
Agency Law30

16. Subjects

  • Banking
  • Foreign Exchange
  • Financial Services
  • Civil Litigation