Van Der Laan v Billionaires Management: Breach of Contract & Fraud in Investment Plan
In Van Der Laan Elisabeth Maria Everarda v Billionaires Management Worldwide (BMW) Pte Ltd and others, the High Court of Singapore, presided over by Quentin Loh J, ruled in favor of the Plaintiff, Mdm Elisabeth Maria Everarda Van Der Laan, against the Defendants, Billionaires Management Worldwide (BMW) Pte Ltd, Mr Thomas Thirugnanam Subramaniam @ Muhd Iskandar Shah TA, and Mdm AJ Hameedah, for breach of contract and conspiracy to defraud. The Plaintiff claimed that the Defendants failed to fulfill their contractual obligations to promote her book and manage her investment, resulting in significant financial loss. The court found that the Defendants had fraudulently induced the Plaintiff to invest her savings and used the funds for their own purposes. The court lifted the corporate veil, holding all three Defendants jointly and severally liable for the Plaintiff's losses.
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
Dutch national Van Der Laan sues Billionaires Management for breach of contract and fraud related to a failed investment plan. The court found in favor of Van Der Laan.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Van Der Laan Elisabeth Maria Everarda | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Elisabeth Maria Everarda Van Der Laan of Independent Practitioner |
| Billionaires Management Worldwide (BMW) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Lost | |
| Thomas Thirugnanam Subramaniam @ Muhd Iskandar Shah T.A. | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Lost | Thomas Thirugnanam Subramaniam @ Muhd Iskandar Shah T.A. of Independent Practitioner |
| AJ Hameedah | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Lost | AJ Hameedah of Independent Practitioner |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Elisabeth Maria Everarda Van Der Laan | Independent Practitioner |
| Thomas Thirugnanam Subramaniam @ Muhd Iskandar Shah T.A. | Independent Practitioner |
| AJ Hameedah | Independent Practitioner |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff, a Dutch national, engaged Defendants to promote her book and manage her investment.
- Defendants promised to achieve worldwide circulation of the book and rebuild Plaintiff's assets to S$1,600,000.
- Plaintiff paid S$500,000 to Defendants for investment and coaching services.
- Defendants failed to provide proper coaching, implement a business strategy, or arrange an investment plan.
- Defendants used Plaintiff's funds for their own business and extravagant lifestyle.
- Defendants made false claims about promoting Plaintiff's book and engaging a Bollywood actor.
- The Plaintiff terminated the contract due to the Defendant's repudiatory breach.
5. Formal Citations
- Van Der Laan Elisabeth Maria Everarda v Billionaires Management Worldwide (BMW) Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 416 of 2008, [2010] SGHC 180
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff met the 2nd and 3rd Defendants at an XL Coaching Programme. | |
| Plaintiff met with the 2nd and 3rd Defendants to discuss a business plan. | |
| Another meeting took place to further discuss the business plan. | |
| Plaintiff met the 2nd and 3rd Defendant at the 1st Defendant’s office to discuss an agreement. | |
| Plaintiff signed the contract at the 1st Defendant’s office. | |
| First tranche of S$250,000 paid by Plaintiff. | |
| Second tranche of S$250,000 paid by Plaintiff. | |
| Plaintiff was paid S$15,000. | |
| Plaintiff was paid S$15,000. | |
| Plaintiff sent a letter suggesting they mutually terminate their Contract. | |
| Plaintiff was paid S$15,000. | |
| Plaintiff was paid S$7,500. | |
| Trial commenced. | |
| Trial dates vacated. | |
| Trial commenced as re-scheduled. | |
| Decision date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendants had breached the contract by failing to provide the agreed-upon services and investment plan.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to provide coaching services
- Failure to implement business strategy
- Failure to arrange investment plan
- Conspiracy to Defraud
- Outcome: The court found that the Defendants conspired to defraud the Plaintiff by fraudulently inducing her to invest her savings with them.
- Category: Substantive
- Lifting the Corporate Veil
- Outcome: The court lifted the corporate veil, holding the directors personally liable for the company's breach of contract and fraudulent activities.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Interest
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Conspiracy to Defraud
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Investment Disputes
11. Industries
- Publishing
- Investment Management
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zurich Insurance (Singapore) Pte Ltd v B-Gold Interior Design & Construction Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1029 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that contracts are not made in a vacuum and the court must ascertain the intention of the parties by construing the agreement against the relevant contextual background. |
| Singapore Tourism Board v Children's Media Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 981 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the corporate veil can be lifted to make company directors liable if they had engaged in a sham transaction. |
| Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd | Queen's Bench | Yes | [1967] 2 QB 786 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of a 'sham' transaction, requiring a common intention among all parties that the acts or documents are not to create the legal rights and obligations they appear to create. |
| The Rialto, Yukong Line Ltd of Korea v Rendsburg Investments Corporation (No. 2) | Commercial Court | Yes | [1998] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 322 | England and Wales | Endorsed the principles in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd regarding sham transactions. |
| Win Line (UK) v Masterpart (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 24 | Singapore | Accepted and endorsed the principles in Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd and The Rialto regarding sham transactions. |
| Arbuthnot Leasing International v Havelet Leasing | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 1 WLR 455 | England and Wales | Suggests that the rule that a company must be represented by a solicitor in court is not an immutable rule of procedure and that there can be exceptional cases. |
| Lea Tool & Moulding Industries (In Liquidation) v CGU International Insurance | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 745 | Singapore | Suggests that the rule that a company must be represented by a solicitor in court is not an immutable rule of procedure and that there can be exceptional cases. |
| Redford v Freeway Classics | Court of Appeal | No | [1994] BCLC 445 | England and Wales | Shows that the exceptions to the rule that a company must be represented by a solicitor in court are indeed exceptions. |
| Lee Siew Chun v Sourgrapes Packaging Products Trading Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR (R) 855 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court is empowered to act on its own motion for ordering an amendment to the pleadings. |
| Quah Kay Tee v Ong and Co Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 637 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of the tort of conspiracy, comprising conspiracy by unlawful means and conspiracy by lawful means. |
| Nagase Singapore Pte Ltd v Ching Hai Huat | High Court | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 80 | Singapore | Held that as a matter of law that there can be a conspiracy between a company and its controlling director to damage a third party by unlawful means even where the director is the company’s moving spirit. |
| Rookes v Barnard | House of Lords | Yes | [1964] AC 1129 | United Kingdom | This is also consonant to the reasoning in Associated British Ports v T.G.W.U. |
| Associated British Ports v T.G.W.U. | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1989] 1 WLR 939 | England and Wales | Reversed on other grounds ibid, HL |
| Derry v Peek | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1888) L.R. 37 Ch. D. 541 | England and Wales | Cited for the definition of fraud, including false representations and promises made knowingly, resulting in pecuniary loss and injury. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Business Strategy
- Investment Plan
- Coaching
- Wealth Dynamics
- BMW-Admall
- Sham Transaction
- Corporate Veil
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
15.2 Keywords
- breach of contract
- fraud
- investment
- corporate veil
- singapore
- high court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Fraud and Deceit | 95 |
| Breach of Contract | 90 |
| Contract Law | 85 |
| Misrepresentation | 80 |
| Company Law | 70 |
| Lifting corporate veil | 65 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 60 |
| Director's Liability | 55 |
| Conspiracy | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Investment Fraud
- Corporate Liability