Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Damages

Wishing Star Ltd appealed against the High Court's decision regarding damages awarded to Jurong Town Corp (JTC) for fraudulent misrepresentations. The Court of Appeal, with Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA delivering the judgment, allowed the appeal in part, finding that JTC failed to sufficiently prove the loss claimed as the difference between the original contract with Wishing Star Ltd and the subsequent contract with Bovis Lend Lease. The court upheld the damages awarded for additional expenses incurred by JTC due to Wishing Star Ltd's misrepresentations.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part. The court found that Jurong Town Corp failed to furnish sufficient proof of loss regarding the difference between contract values.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding damages awarded to Jurong Town Corp for fraudulent misrepresentations by Wishing Star Ltd. The court examined proof of loss and damage scope.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Jurong Town CorpRespondentStatutory BoardDamages awarded in partPartial
Wishing Star LtdAppellantCorporationAppeal allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Sek KeongChief JusticeNo
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
V K RajahJustice of the Court of AppealNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ho Chien MienAllen & Gledhill LLP
Sheik Umar bin Mohamed BagushairAllen & Gledhill LLP
Ling Vey HongDrew & Napier LLC
Tan Kon Yeng EugeneDrew & Napier LLC
Tan Liam BengDrew & Napier LLC
Sandra Tan Pei MayDrew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

  1. Jurong Town Corp was developing the Biopolis, a biomedical research complex.
  2. The project had a fast-track timeline of 19 months.
  3. Wishing Star Ltd submitted the lowest bid of $54m for the façade works.
  4. Samsung resisted entering into a contract with Wishing Star Ltd.
  5. Jurong Town Corp terminated the contract with Wishing Star Ltd for misrepresentation and breach of contract.
  6. Jurong Town Corp engaged Bovis Lend Lease to complete the façade works for $61.81m.
  7. The next lowest bid after Wishing Star Ltd was $63,458,706 by Liang Huat Aluminium Industries Pte Ltd.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp, CA 107/2007, [2008] SGCA 17

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Wishing Star Ltd submitted its tender.
Jurong Town Corp awarded the contract for façade works to Wishing Star Ltd.
Jurong Town Corp invited Bovis Lend Lease, Samsung and Diethelm Industries Pte Ltd to submit quotations for the façade works.
Bovis Lend Lease submitted a quotation of $57,500,008.
Jurong Town Corp inspected Wishing Star Ltd’s facilities in China.
Jurong Town Corp terminated its contract with Wishing Star Ltd.
Jurong Town Corp invited six companies to bid for the façade works.
End of tender period.
Jurong Town Corp awarded the contract to Bovis Lend Lease.
High Court found Wishing Star Ltd guilty of misrepresenting some facts.
Court of Appeal found that Wishing Star Ltd had made numerous fraudulent misrepresentations.
The Judge made an award of damages in favour of Jurong Town Corporation.
Judgment reserved by Court of Appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that Wishing Star Ltd had made fraudulent misrepresentations to Jurong Town Corp.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Proof of fraud
      • Reliance on misrepresentation
      • Scope of damages
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] SGHC 128
      • [2005] 3 SLR 283
      • (1889) 14 App Cas 337
      • [1969] 2 QB 158
      • [1997] AC 254
  2. Measure of Damages
    • Outcome: The court held that Jurong Town Corp failed to furnish sufficient proof of loss in respect of its claim for the difference between the WSL Contract and the BLL Contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Direct loss
      • Consequential loss
      • Mitigation of loss
      • Causation
    • Related Cases:
      • [1997] AC 254
      • [1969] 2 QB 158
  3. Proof of Loss
    • Outcome: The court found that Jurong Town Corp failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove the loss claimed under item (a).
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town CorpHigh CourtYes[2007] SGHC 128SingaporeRefers to the lower court's decision on the matter.
Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd (No 2)Court of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR 283SingaporeThe Court of Appeal previously determined the issue of liability in favour of JTC.
Derry v PeekHouse of LordsYes(1889) 14 App Cas 337United KingdomCited for the classic formulation of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit.
Chop Ban Kheng v Chop Siang Huah and Latham & CoSingapore High CourtYes(1925) 2 MC 69SingaporeCited for adopting the principles enunciated in Derry v Peek in the local context.
Baker v Asia Motor Co LtdSingapore High CourtYes[1962] MLJ 425SingaporeCited for adopting the principles enunciated in Derry v Peek in the local context.
Malayan Miners Co (M) Ltd v Lian Hock & CoSingapore High CourtYes[1965-1968] SLR 481SingaporeCited for adopting the principles enunciated in Derry v Peek in the local context.
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland CoSingapore High CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR 196SingaporeCited for adopting the principles enunciated in Derry v Peek in the local context.
Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow LeeCourt of AppealYes[2001] 3 SLR 405SingaporeCited for adopting the principles enunciated in Derry v Peek in the local context.
Ng Buay Hock v Tan Keng HuatSingapore High CourtYes[1997] 2 SLR 788SingaporeCited for the observation that the essence of fraud is dishonesty.
Angus v CliffordEnglish Court of AppealYes[1891] 2 Ch 449United KingdomCited in relation to Lord Herschell’s statement in Derry v Peek on false representations which are made “recklessly, careless whether [they] be true or false”.
Tang Yoke Kheng v Lek BenedictCourt of AppealYes[2005] 3 SLR 263SingaporeCited for an overview and analysis of cases and arguments regarding the standard of proof in fraud cases.
Chua Kwee Chen, Lim Kah Nee and Lim Chah In v Koh Choon ChinSingapore High CourtYes[2006] 3 SLR 469SingaporeCited for an overview and analysis of cases and arguments regarding the standard of proof in fraud cases.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] SGCA 8SingaporeCited for the requirement that the plaintiff must prove its loss.
Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Citibank NAHouse of LordsYes[1997] AC 254United KingdomReaffirmed the principle that damages for fraudulent misrepresentation include all loss that flowed directly as a result of the entry by the plaintiff into the transaction.
Doyle v Olby (Ironmongers) LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[1969] 2 QB 158United KingdomCited for the principle that damages for fraudulent misrepresentation include all loss that flowed directly as a result of the entry by the plaintiff into the transaction.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners LtdHouse of LordsYes[1964] AC 465United KingdomCited to contrast the damages awardable for a negligent misrepresentation.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound)Privy CouncilYes[1961] AC 388United KingdomCited for the doctrine of remoteness of damage in negligent misrepresentation.
Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd v Pang Seng MengSingapore High CourtYes[2004] 4 SLR 162SingaporeCited for adopting Doyle and Smith New Court with regard to the issue of recovery of all direct loss flowing from the transaction that was entered into as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation.
Letchmy Arumugan v N AnnamalayMalaysian High CourtYes[1982] 2 MLJ 199MalaysiaCited for adopting Doyle.
Tay Tho Bok v Segar Oil Palm Estate Sdn BhdMalaysian High CourtYes[1996] 3 MLJ 181MalaysiaCited for adopting Doyle.
Segar Oil Palm Estate Sdn Bhd v Tay Tho BokMalaysian Court of AppealYes[1997] 3 MLJ 211MalaysiaCited as reversing the lower court's decision, but not in respect of the lower court’s adoption of the principles laid down in Doyle.
Magnum Finance Berhad v Tan Ah PoiMalaysian High CourtYes[1997] 3 AMR 2265MalaysiaCited for adopting Doyle.
Sim Thong Realty Sdn Bhd v Teh Kim Dar @ Tee KimMalaysian High CourtYes[2003] 3 MLJ 460MalaysiaCited for adopting Doyle.
CHS CPO GmbH v Vikas GoelSingapore High CourtYes[2005] 3 SLR 202SingaporeCited for citing Smith New Court with approval with regard to the issue of recovery of all direct (including consequential) loss flowing from the transaction that was entered into as a result of a fraudulent misrepresentation.
South Australia Asset Management Corporation v York Montague LtdHouse of LordsYes[1997] AC 191United KingdomCited for the point that the defendant is not liable for losses which the plaintiff would have suffered even if he had not entered into the transaction.
East v MaurerEnglish Court of AppealYes[1991] 1 WLR 461United KingdomCited to show that there could be a coincidence in quantum between the contractual and the tortious measures of damages.
Clef Aquitaine SARL v Laporte Materials (Barrow) LtdEnglish Court of AppealYes[2001] QB 488United KingdomCited to show that there could be a coincidence in quantum between the contractual and the tortious measures of damages.
Panwah Steel Pte Ltd v Koh Brothers Building & Civil Engineering Contractor (Pte) LtdCourt of AppealYes[2006] 4 SLR 571SingaporeCited for the point that, in exceptional situations, this court will even entertain a new point on appeal, provided that it is in as advantageous a situation as the court below to determine the point.
Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp (No 2)High CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR 339SingaporeRefers to the trial judge's decision that JTC had not relied on the misrepresentations to award WSL the WSL Contract.

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

  • Fraudulent misrepresentation
  • Damages
  • Proof of loss
  • Direct loss
  • Consequential loss
  • Façade works
  • Biopolis
  • Tender exercise
  • Contract
  • Rescission

15.2 Keywords

  • Fraudulent misrepresentation
  • Damages
  • Contract
  • Construction
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Fraud and Deceit95
Misrepresentation90
Damages Assessment80
Contract Law75
Torts60

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Damages