Lee Chang-Rung v Standard Chartered Bank: Striking Out for Failure to Disclose Investment Experience
In Lee Chang-Rung and others v Standard Chartered Bank, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal against an order striking out their action for failure to comply with an 'unless order' regarding discovery of documents. The plaintiffs, joint holders of accounts with American Express Bank (later acquired by Standard Chartered), alleged misrepresentation by the bank concerning a structured product. The court found the plaintiffs' non-disclosure of their investment experience with DBS Bank to be wilful and deliberate, creating a serious risk to a fair trial. The court ordered the plaintiffs to pay the defendant's costs of the appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiffs' action struck out for failing to disclose investment experience with DBS, relevant to misrepresentation claim against Standard Chartered Bank.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Chang-Rung | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Leonard Loo |
| Standard Chartered Bank | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | Hri Kumar, James Loh |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leonard Loo | Leonard Loo LLP |
| Hri Kumar | Drew & Napier LLC |
| James Loh | Drew & Napier LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs opened accounts with American Express Bank (later acquired by Standard Chartered).
- Plaintiffs had prior investment experience with DBS, including structured notes.
- Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation by Ms. Lau regarding a structured product.
- Plaintiffs claimed the product was represented as a safe, principal-protected investment.
- Plaintiffs failed to disclose their full investment experience with DBS.
- DBS documents revealed plaintiffs invested almost US$5 million in structured products.
- Plaintiffs objected to the defendant's application to obtain discovery directly from DBS.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Chang-Rung and others v Standard Chartered Bank, Suit No 212 of 2009, [2010] SGHC 276
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs opened three accounts with American Express Bank Limited. | |
| Plaintiffs began purchasing investment products from DBS. | |
| Ms. Lau spoke to the first and fourth plaintiffs about a structured product. | |
| Plaintiffs commenced suit against Standard Chartered Bank. | |
| Plaintiffs filed their list of documents. | |
| Defendant's solicitors requested discovery of documents related to investment experience. | |
| AR ordered plaintiffs to give discovery. | |
| Deadline for plaintiffs to comply with discovery order. | |
| AR dismissed plaintiffs' application for extension of time and granted an 'unless order'. | |
| Plaintiffs filed an affidavit in purported compliance with the 'unless order'. | |
| Andrew Ang J heard the plaintiffs' appeals and granted leave to withdraw the appeals. | |
| AR ordered the amended writ of summons and statement of claim struck out and the action dismissed. | |
| Plaintiffs' appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Failure to Comply with Discovery Order
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs had wilfully failed to comply with the discovery order.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-disclosure of relevant documents
- Misleading the court
- Striking Out Action for Non-Compliance
- Outcome: The court upheld the decision to strike out the plaintiffs' action.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Deliberate suppression of evidence
- Risk of unfair trial
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Banking Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Manilal & Sons v Bhupendra KJ Khan (t/a JB International) | Unknown | Yes | [1989] 2 SLR(R) 603 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the present case, noting that in Manilal, the claim that certain documents were not in existence was found to be untrue. |
| Alliance Management SA v Pendleton Lane P & Anor | Unknown | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR 1 | Singapore | Cited for the four instances where an action would be struck out for failure to comply with an 'unless order'. |
| Federal Lands Commissioner v Neo Hong Huat | High Court | Yes | [1998] SGHC 131 | Singapore | Cited to compare the plaintiffs' conduct to a case where the defaulting party insisted he had no documents and waited to see if the other party could produce any. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap. 97) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Unless Order
- Discovery
- Structured Products
- Misrepresentation
- Surf Deposits
- Investment Experience
15.2 Keywords
- Discovery
- Structured Products
- Misrepresentation
- Banking
- Singapore
- Appeal
16. Subjects
- Civil Litigation
- Banking
- Discovery
- Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Banking Law
- Discovery
- Structured Products