Chan Pui Woo Teresa v Ng Fook Khau Michael: Advance Fee Fraud & Negligent Misrepresentation

Chan Pui Woo Teresa sued Ng Fook Khau Michael and Jonathan Tan See Leh in the High Court of Singapore on March 25, 2011, for losses suffered from an advance fee fraud. Teresa had obtained interlocutory judgment against Michael. Teresa claimed damages against Jonathan for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation. The court dismissed Teresa's claim against Jonathan, finding that she did not rely on Jonathan's assurances and that he owed her no duty of care.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claim dismissed with costs on a standard basis.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Victim of advance fee fraud sues colleague for misrepresentation. Court dismisses claim, finding no reliance on colleague's assurances.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Jonathan Tan See LehDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon
Chan Pui Woo TeresaPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Ng Fook Khau MichaelDefendantIndividualInterlocutory judgment obtained against defendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Teresa was the victim of an advance fee fraud.
  2. Michael perpetrated the fraud among members of the Christian community.
  3. Teresa advanced money to Michael under three agreements.
  4. Jonathan introduced Michael to Teresa.
  5. Jonathan drafted the three agreements between Teresa and Michael.
  6. Teresa also advanced other sums to Michael between 2002 and 2005.
  7. Teresa sold off most of her assets and drew on her savings to settle her debts.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chan Pui Woo Teresa v Ng Fook Khau Michael and another, Suit No 454 of 2008, [2011] SGHC 65

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Teresa was called to the Singapore Bar.
Teresa joined the Raffles Group Law Practice.
Jonathan joined the Raffles Group Law Practice.
Jonathan introduced Michael to Teresa.
Teresa and Michael entered into the First Agreement.
Teresa and Michael entered into the Second Agreement.
Teresa, Jonathan and Michael entered into the Third Agreement.
Jonathan furnished documents to the Commercial Affairs Department.
The Commercial Affairs Department began another round of investigations on Michael.
The Commercial Affairs Department advised Michael to refrain from soliciting further loans.
Teresa commenced action against Michael and Jonathan.
Teresa obtained interlocutory judgment against Michael.
Judgment was delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found the claim for fraudulent misrepresentation unsustainable.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Negligent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that no duty of care was owed by the defendant to the plaintiff and therefore the defendant was not liable for any negligent statements.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Negligent Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Financial Services
  • Legal Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Advance fee fraud
  • 419 fraud
  • Nigerian scam
  • Fraudulent misrepresentation
  • Negligent misrepresentation
  • Duty of care

15.2 Keywords

  • fraud
  • misrepresentation
  • negligence
  • singapore
  • high court
  • contract
  • financial crime

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Fraud
  • Misrepresentation
  • Financial Crime