Chee Jok Heng Stephanie v Chang Yue Shoon: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Recovery of Funds
In Chee Jok Heng Stephanie v Chang Yue Shoon, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by Dr. Chee Jok Heng Stephanie against Mr. Chang Yue Shoon for the repayment of $45,000 and $682,000. Dr. Chee alleged that Mr. Chang fraudulently misrepresented himself as a lawyer and induced her to pay him these sums. The court found in favor of Dr. Chee, ordering restitution of both sums based on fraudulent misrepresentation.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dr. Chee sought recovery of $45,000 and $682,000 from Mr. Chang, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation. The court ordered restitution of both sums.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chee Jok Heng Stephanie | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Andrew J Hanam |
| Chang Yue Shoon | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | S H Almenoar |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andrew J Hanam | Andrew & Co |
| S H Almenoar | R Ramason & Almenoar |
4. Facts
- Dr. Chee claimed repayment of $45,000 and $682,000 from Mr. Chang.
- Dr. Chee was introduced to Mr. Chang as a lawyer specializing in criminal matters.
- Mr. Chang represented to Dr. Chee that he was a criminal lawyer and offered legal advice for a monthly fee.
- Dr. Chee made three payments of $15,000 each to Mr. Chang.
- Mr. Chang advised Dr. Chee to transfer proceeds from the sale of her property to him to avoid seizure by the CAD.
- Dr. Chee gave a cheque for $682,000 to Mr. Chang, with the words "Return of friendly loan – interest free" written on a photocopy.
- Mr. Chang denied representing himself as a lawyer and claimed the payments were for business consultancy services.
5. Formal Citations
- Chee Jok Heng Stephanie v Chang Yue Shoon, Suit No 827 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 153
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Dr. Chee contacted Mr. Chang seeking legal advice. | |
| Dr. Chee made first payment of $15,000 to Mr. Chang. | |
| Dr. Chee made second payment of $15,000 to Mr. Chang. | |
| Dr. Chee made third payment of $15,000 to Mr. Chang. | |
| Dr. Chee formally engaged Peter Low as counsel through Mr. Chang. | |
| Dr. Chee closed Wilcare and continued business under ARA. | |
| Dr. Chee collected net proceeds of $856,555.29 from sale of Maplewoods property. | |
| Dr. Chee gave a cheque for $682,000 to Mr. Chang. | |
| Conversation between Dr. Chee and Mr. Chang was tape-recorded. | |
| Conversation between Sharon Lourdes Paul and Mr. Chang was recorded. | |
| Conversation between Dr. Chee and Mr. Chang was recorded. | |
| Suit No 827 of 2009 filed. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Chang knowingly made false representations to Dr. Chee that he was a criminal lawyer, inducing her to pay him for his services.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False representation of professional qualifications
- Inducement to contract based on false representation
- Related Cases:
- [2005] 3 SLR(R) 283
- (1887) 34 Ch D 582
- (1889) 14 App Cas 337
- Illegality (Ex Turpi Causa)
- Outcome: The court found that the claim fell under an exception to the doctrine of illegality, as Dr. Chee's claim was based on an equitable property right and she did not need to rely on any evidence of illegality to establish her property right.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Transfer of property for illegal purpose
- Whether parties are in pari delicto
- Related Cases:
- [1775] 1 Cowp 341
- [2008] 1 SLR(R) 375
- [1916] 2 KB 482
- [1999] 1 SLR(R) 154
- (1994) 122 ALR 240
- [1925] 2 KB 1
- [1994] 1 AC 340
8. Remedies Sought
- Restitution
- Rescission of Contract
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Breach of Contract
- Money Had and Received
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 283 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a contract can be rescinded if a contractor was induced to enter it by fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Newbigging v Adam | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1887) 34 Ch D 582 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a contract can be rescinded if a contractor was induced to enter it by fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Sumitomo Bank Ltd v Thahir Kartika Ratna and others and another matter | High Court | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 638 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where money is paid to a person wrongfully (as in a case of fraud or bribery) the sum can be recovered as money had and received. |
| Derry v Peek | House of Lords | Yes | (1889) 14 App Cas 337 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of fraud as a false representation made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. |
| Blue Nile Co Ltd v Emery Customs Brokers (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 396 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of fraud as a false representation made knowingly, without belief in its truth, or recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. |
| Holman v Johnson | King's Bench | Yes | [1775] 1 Cowp 341 | England | Cited for the general principle of illegality (ex turpi causa) that prevents the court from assisting a litigant whose cause of action is based on illegality. |
| Koon Seng Construction Pte Ltd v Chenab Contractor Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 375 | Singapore | Cited for the general principle of illegality (ex turpi causa) that prevents the court from assisting a litigant whose cause of action is based on illegality. |
| Clunis v Camden and Islington Health Authority | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] QB 978 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the ex turpi principle is not confined to any particular cause of action. |
| Lewis & Queen v N M Ball Sons | Supreme Court of California | Yes | 48 Cal 2d 141 (1957) | United States | Cited for the principle that the court may not enforce a contract if it is satisfied that the contract had an illegal object, whether the facts were pleaded or not. |
| Hughes v Liverpool Victoria Friendly Society | Court of Appeal | No | [1916] 2 KB 482 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that fraud can render a plaintiff not in pari delicto vis-à-vis a defendant and therefore not susceptible to the illegality rule. |
| PP v Intra Group (Holdings) Co Inc | High Court | No | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 154 | Singapore | Discusses the exception to the doctrine of in pari delicto where the transfer of property was induced by a breach of fiduciary duty. |
| Weston v Beaufils | Federal Court of Australia | No | (1994) 122 ALR 240 | Australia | Cited for the exception to the doctrine of illegality where the tainted transfer of property was induced by a breach of fiduciary duty by the defendant. |
| Parkinson v College Of Ambulance Ltd | Court of Appeal | No | [1925] 2 KB 1 | England and Wales | Cited to distinguish Hughes, stating that where the party seeking to recover is not innocent but aware of the illegality of the transaction, he cannot succeed. |
| Shelley v Paddock | Court of Appeal | No | [1980] 2 WLR 647 | England and Wales | Discussed in relation to the exception to the doctrine of in pari delicto. |
| Tinsley v Milligan | House of Lords | Yes | [1994] 1 AC 340 | United Kingdom | Cited as the leading authority for claims based on property rights acquired through an illegal transaction. |
| Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd v Lucky Red Investments Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 559 | Singapore | Followed Tinsley v Milligan in the context of property rights acquired through an illegal transaction. |
| Stone & Rolls Ltd (In Liquidation) v Moore Stephens (A Firm) | House of Lords | No | [2009] 1 AC 1391 | United Kingdom | Explained that Tinsley v Milligan did not lay down a universal test of ex turpi causa but was dealing with the effect of illegality on title to property. |
| Alexander v Rayson | King's Bench Division | Yes | [1936] 1 KB 169 | England and Wales | Approved by Lord Browne-Wilkinson in Tinsley v Milligan, stating that where the claim is to enforce a contract the claim will be defeated if the defendant shows that the contract was for an illegal purpose. |
| Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 220 | Singapore | Applied Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) in finding a constructive trust due to fraud. |
| Bahr v Nicolay (No 2) | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1988) 164 CLR 604 | Australia | Applied in Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim Betsy and others and another appeal in finding a constructive trust. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Fraudulent misrepresentation
- Restitution
- Illegality
- Ex turpi causa
- In pari delicto
- Trust
- Criminal lawyer
- CAD (Commercial Affairs Department)
15.2 Keywords
- fraud
- misrepresentation
- restitution
- contract
- singapore
- high court
16. Subjects
- Fraud
- Contract Law
- Trusts
- Restitution
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Fraud
- Restitution
- Trust Law