DBS Bank v Yamazaki Mazak: Tort of Deceit & Summary Judgment in Loan Disbursement Dispute

DBS Bank Ltd sued Yamazaki Mazak Singapore Pte Ltd and Hwa Lai Heng Ricky in the High Court of Singapore, alleging deceit concerning the disbursement of loans under the Regionalisation Finance Scheme. The bank claimed that Hwa Lai Heng Ricky, an assistant sales manager at Yamazaki Mazak, misrepresented that a down payment had been received, inducing the bank to disburse the loan. The High Court dismissed all three appeals, varying the judgment sum awarded to DBS Bank against Hwa Lai Heng Ricky to account for the recovered machines.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals dismissed with a variation of the judgment sum awarded to the plaintiff against the second defendant.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

DBS Bank sued Yamazaki Mazak and Hwa Lai Heng for deceit related to a loan disbursement. The court dismissed appeals, varying the judgment sum.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
DBS Bank LtdPlaintiff, RespondentCorporationAppeal dismissed with a variation of the judgment sumPartial
Yamazaki Mazak Singapore Pte LtdDefendant, AppellantCorporationUnconditional leave to defend grantedWon
Hwa Lai Heng RickyDefendant, AppellantIndividualSummary judgment grantedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Terence TanRodyk & Davidson LLP
Melissa ThngRodyk & Davidson LLP
Chua Sui TongWong Partnership LLP
Aw Wen NiWong Partnership LLP
Loo Dip SengAng & Partners

4. Facts

  1. DBS granted Sin Yuh two RFS loans to finance the purchase of machinery from Yamazaki Mazak.
  2. The loan amount under RFS I was $1.94m.
  3. A letter from Yamazaki Mazak confirmed receipt of $1.293m from Sin Yuh as a 40% down payment.
  4. DBS disbursed the loan to Yamazaki Mazak based on the letter.
  5. Sin Yuh defaulted on the loan repayments and became insolvent.
  6. The 2nd defendant was convicted of abetment by intentional aiding the commission of the offence of cheating.
  7. DBS sued Yamazaki Mazak and the 2nd defendant for deceit.

5. Formal Citations

  1. DBS Bank Ltd v Yamazaki Mazak Singapore Pte Ltd and Another, Suit 511/2007, RA 105/2008, 110/2008, 170/2008, [2008] SGHC 181

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Partial payment of 40% of the purchase price was allegedly made by Sin Yuh for the machines.
DBS loan application known to the 2nd defendant.
Sin Yuh's application for RFS was dated.
Sin Yuh requested the 1st defendant to provide the plaintiff with confirmation that the difference between the purchase price of the machines and the loan had been received.
The 1st defendant confirmed that it had received the sum of $1.293m from Sin Yuh.
Letter from EDB to the plaintiff.
The plaintiff disbursed the loan to the 1st defendant’s bank account.
Notes of Evidence dated in the criminal trial.
The 1st defendant filed its Defence.
The 2nd defendant filed his Defence.
Affidavit of Henry Tan Bee Heng filed in support of the plaintiff’s application for summary judgment.
Show cause affidavit of Mr Toshimitsu Kito dated.
AR Teo’s decision granting summary judgment to the plaintiff for its claim against the 2nd defendant and granting the 1st defendant unconditional leave to defend.
SAR Yap’s dismissal of the 2nd defendant’s application to amend his Defence.
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Tort of Deceit
    • Outcome: The court found that the 2nd defendant's actions constituted the tort of deceit.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] SGHC 195
  2. Summary Judgment
    • Outcome: The court upheld the granting of summary judgment against the 2nd defendant, with a variation of the judgment sum.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [1999] 3 SLR 650
  3. Vicarious Liability
    • Outcome: The court found that there was a triable issue as to whether the 2nd defendant was acting within his scope of authority when he issued the letter to the plaintiff and/or whether the 2nd defendant had the apparent authority to issue the letter to the plaintiff on the 1st defendant’s behalf.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Admissibility of Criminal Conviction in Civil Proceedings
    • Outcome: The court held that the 2nd defendant's criminal conviction was admissible as evidence in the civil proceedings, but it was not conclusive and could be rebutted.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] 2 SLR 455
      • [1994] 1 SLR 584

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Tort of Deceit
  • Vicarious Liability

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Banking Litigation

11. Industries

  • Banking
  • Manufacturing

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Hwa Lai Heng Ricky v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2005] SGHC 195SingaporeCited for the facts of the criminal proceedings against the 2nd defendant and the findings of Yong CJ regarding the misrepresentation and dishonest intention.
Habibullah Mohamed Yusoff v Indian BankCourt of AppealYes[1999] 3 SLR 650SingaporeCited for the applicable principles governing summary judgment.
Jones v StoneN/AYesJones v Stone [1894] AC 122N/ACited for the principle that summary judgment applies where there is no reasonable doubt that a plaintiff is entitled to judgment.
Ironclad (Australia) Gold Mining Co v GardnerN/AYesIronclad (Australia) Gold Mining Co v Gardner (1887) 4 TLR 18N/ACited for the principle that a defendant should have leave to defend if they show a fair case for defence or reasonable grounds for setting up a defence.
Ward v PlumbleyN/AYesWard v Plumbley (1890) 6 TLR 198N/ACited for the principle that a defendant should have leave to defend if they show a fair case for defence or reasonable grounds for setting up a defence.
Ong Bee Nah v Won Siew Wan (Yong Tian Choy, third party)High CourtYes[2005] 2 SLR 455SingaporeCited for the legislative intent and rationale behind the enactment of s 45A in Singapore and the holistic approach in assessing the weight to be given to evidence from criminal proceedings.
Choo Michael v Loh Shak MowHigh CourtYes[1994] 1 SLR 584SingaporeCited for the principle that the admissibility of evidence of a criminal conviction is not conclusive in and of itself and for an example of a similar case based on the tort of deceit.
PP v Heah Lian KhinN/AYes[2000] 3 SLR 609SingaporeCited for the purpose behind s 45A, which is to save judicial time and legal costs.
Hollington v F Hewthorn and Company LimitedCourt of AppealYes[1943] 1 KB 587EnglandCited as the old common law rule that a prior conviction could not be adduced for the purpose of proving the guilt of the defendant in subsequent civil proceedings relating to the same matter, which was abolished by s 45A of the Evidence Act.
PlanAssure PAC (formerly known as Patrick Lee PAC) v Gaelic Inns Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR 513SingaporeCited for endorsing the holistic approach in assessing the precise weight which should be attached to evidence from criminal proceedings.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 14

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 1985 Rev Ed) s 420Singapore
Penal Code s 109Singapore
Penal Code s 107(c)Singapore
Penal Code s 24Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 45ASingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Regionalisation Finance Scheme
  • RFS
  • Loan Disbursement
  • Tort of Deceit
  • Summary Judgment
  • Vicarious Liability
  • Abetment
  • Misrepresentation
  • Dishonest Intention

15.2 Keywords

  • loan
  • deceit
  • summary judgment
  • evidence
  • conviction
  • RFS
  • misrepresentation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Civil Practice75
Evidence75
Fraud and Deceit60
Summary Judgement50
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Evidence
  • Banking
  • Tort