Subramaniam v Pandiyan: Rescission of Settlement Agreement Based on Misrepresentation Claim

In Subramaniam s/o Muneyandi and another v Pandiyan John, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the rescission of a settlement agreement. The plaintiffs sought to rescind the agreement based on alleged misrepresentations by the defendant and to revive a claim regarding the transfer of shares. The court, presided over by Justice Woo Bih Li, allowed the defendant's appeal, striking out the plaintiffs' statement of claim as frivolous and an abuse of process, finding that the plaintiffs were bound by the settlement agreement.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiffs sought to rescind a settlement agreement based on alleged misrepresentations. The court struck out the claim, finding it frivolous and an abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Subramaniam s/o MuneyandiPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Pandiyan JohnDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Vasandamallar Mrs SubramaniamPlaintiff, RespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJusticeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Jeya PutraIsland Law LLC
Chandrayogan YogarajahIsland Law LLC
Eugene ThuraisingamStamford Law Corporation
Mervyn CheongStamford Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. The Plaintiffs sought rescission of a Settlement Agreement based on alleged misrepresentations by the Defendant.
  2. The Plaintiffs claimed the Defendant misrepresented his qualifications and experience.
  3. The Plaintiffs alleged they would not have transferred shares or entered the Settlement Agreement had they known of the misrepresentations.
  4. The Defendant argued the Plaintiffs were bound by the Settlement Agreement.
  5. The Plaintiffs filed a writ of summons and statement of claim on 7 January 2011.
  6. The Defendant filed Summons No 182 of 2011 to strike out the statement of claim.
  7. The Plaintiffs made complaints to the Singapore and Indian police regarding the Defendant's alleged misrepresentations.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Subramaniam s/o Muneyandi and another v Pandiyan John, Suit No 9 of 2011 (Registrar's Appeal No 37 of 2011 and Summons No 1148 of 2011), [2011] SGHC 102

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Settlement Agreement dated
Writ of summons filed
Defendant filed Summons No 182 of 2011
Assistant Registrar dismissed the Defendant’s application
Defendant filed an appeal
Defence (amendment no 1) was filed
Reply was filed
Court heard the Defendant’s appeal
Defendant filed an application in Summons No 1148 of 2011
Court decided to allow the appeal
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that the representations did not induce the Settlement Agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Falsity of representations
      • Inducement
      • Reliance
  2. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court found that the statement of claim was an abuse of process.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Rescission of Settlement Agreement
  2. Refund of moneys paid
  3. Declaration that transfer of shares be declared void

9. Cause of Actions

  • Rescission of Settlement Agreement
  • Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lassiter Ann Masters v To Keng Lam (alias Toh Jeanette)Court of AppealYes[2004] 2 SLR(R) 392SingaporeCited for principles for allowing evidence at an appeal from a registrar to a judge in chambers.
WBG Network (S) Pte Ltd v Sunny Daisy LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 1133SingaporeCited for principles for allowing evidence at an appeal from a registrar to a judge in chambers.
Ho Seek Yueng Novel and another v J & V Development Pte LtdN/AYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 742SingaporeCited regarding the introduction of new evidence after a hearing had been conducted.
British Coal Corporation v Dennis Rye LtdN/AYes(1988) 1 WLR 1113N/ACited regarding litigation privilege.
Gilbert v EndeanCourt of AppealYes(1878) 9 Ch D 259N/ACited regarding compromise reached because the defendant had concealed a material fact.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Settlement Agreement
  • Misrepresentation
  • Rescission
  • Seagull group
  • Permanent residency
  • Underlying Dispute
  • Representations

15.2 Keywords

  • settlement agreement
  • misrepresentation
  • rescission
  • Singapore
  • contract law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Rescission90
Misrepresentation90
Contract Law70
Breach of Contract60
Abuse of Process50
Company Law30
Estoppel30
Corporate Litigation20
Arbitration10

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Civil Procedure
  • Settlements
  • Misrepresentation