Lee Chang-Rung v Leonard Loo LLP: Negligence, Breach of Contract & Lost Chance in Structured Product Misrepresentation Claim
Lee Chang-Rung, along with other plaintiffs, sued Leonard Loo LLP and Mr. Loo Peng Chee Leonard in the High Court of Singapore on 29 August 2012, alleging negligence and breach of contract. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants' actions caused them to lose a chance of succeeding in a claim against Standard Chartered Bank (SCB) regarding misrepresentations on a structured product issued by Lehman Brothers. The court, led by Justice Tan Lee Meng, dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case that they had a real or substantial chance of succeeding against SCB.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Claim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiffs sued Leonard Loo LLP for negligence and breach of contract, alleging a lost chance of succeeding in a suit against Standard Chartered Bank regarding misrepresentations on a Lehman Brothers structured product. The court dismissed the claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lee Chang-Rung | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lee Huey-Jen | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lee Sung-Rong | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Hu Yen-Cheng | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Leonard Loo LLP | Defendant | Limited Liability Partnership | Claim Dismissed | Won | |
| Loo Peng Chee Leonard | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs sued defendants for negligence and breach of contract, alleging loss of a chance to succeed against SCB.
- Plaintiffs claimed Ms. Lau of SCB made false representations about a Lehman Brothers structured product.
- Suit 212 was struck out due to plaintiffs' failure to comply with a discovery order regarding investment experience.
- Plaintiffs portrayed themselves as inexperienced investors, which was contradicted by evidence of sophisticated investments.
- LCR, the main witness, admitted to making false statements in a letter of complaint to SCB.
- LCR admitted that the plaintiffs' case against SCB was founded on a lie and was 'hopeless'.
- Plaintiffs failed to disclose DBS documents despite knowing their obligation to do so.
5. Formal Citations
- Lee Chang-Rung and others v Leonard Loo LLP and another, Suit No 259 of 2011, [2012] SGHC 174
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| SCB's solicitors wrote to Leonard Loo LLP regarding discovery of documents. | |
| Leonard Loo LLP replied that SCB was 'fishing for evidence'. | |
| Assistant Registrar ordered the plaintiffs to give discovery of documents. | |
| Deadline for plaintiffs to furnish required documents to SCB. | |
| Assistant Registrar granted an Unless Order. | |
| Deadline for plaintiffs to comply with the Unless Order. | |
| Plaintiffs confirmed they were clients of DBS and disclosed investments in Surf Deposit products. | |
| Leonard Loo LLP confirmed that the disclosed documents were all the relevant documents in the plaintiffs’ possession. | |
| DBS was ordered to disclose documents relating to the plaintiffs’ investment experience with DBS. | |
| DBS furnished the DBS documents to D & N. | |
| DBS furnished the DBS documents to D & N. | |
| SCB took out Summons No 985 of 2010 to strike out the plaintiffs’ action. | |
| Suit 212 was struck out. | |
| Plaintiffs instructed JLC Advisors LLP to take over the conduct of Suit 212 from the defendants. | |
| Plaintiffs’ appeal to the Court of Appeal against Tay J’s decision was dismissed. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case that the defendants' negligence caused their loss of a chance of success.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case that the defendants' breach of contract caused their loss of a chance of success.
- Category: Substantive
- Loss of a Chance
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs did not establish a prima facie case that they had a real or substantial chance of succeeding against SCB in Suit 212.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 1 WLR 1602
- [2002] 3 All ER 750
- Discovery Obligations
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs were responsible for the striking out of Suit 212 due to their failure to disclose documents.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for loss of a chance
- Refund of legal fees and costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Banking
- Legal
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Juay Pah v Kimly Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 549 | Singapore | Cited for the principle regarding the success of a 'no case to answer' submission. |
| Smile Inc Dental Surgeons Pte Ltd v Lui Andrew Stewart | High Court | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 847 | Singapore | Cited for summarizing the position on a submission of no case to answer. |
| Relfo Ltd (in liquidation) v Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani | High Court | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 657 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of what constitutes a prima facie case. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to succeed in a claim under the tort of negligence. |
| Asia Hotel Investments Ltd v Starwood Asia Pacific Management Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 661 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that loss must be shown to have arisen from a breach of contract. |
| Allied Maples Group Ltd v Simmons & Simmons (a firm) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 WLR 1602 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff is entitled to damages if they can prove there was a 'real or substantial' chance of an action being taken. |
| Bank of Commerce and Credit International SA (in liquidation) v Ali and Others (No 2) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 3 All ER 750 | England and Wales | Cited for reiterating the principle that a claimant must prove on a balance of probabilities that he had lost a real or substantial chance rather than a speculative one. |
| Horsfall v Thomas | N/A | Yes | (1862) 1 H & N 90 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that for a case of misrepresentation to succeed, the misled party must have been induced by the misrepresentation in question to enter into the contract. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules Rules 56 and 58 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Financial Advisors Act (Cap 110, Rev Ed 2007) s 27 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Structured product
- Misrepresentation
- Discovery
- Unless Order
- Loss of a chance
- Investment experience
- DBS documents
- Negligence
- Breach of contract
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- breach of contract
- loss of chance
- structured product
- misrepresentation
- discovery
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Negligence | 80 |
| Breach of Contract | 75 |
| Discovery Obligations | 70 |
| Misrepresentation | 65 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Professional Negligence | 55 |
| Evidence | 50 |
| Financial Products | 45 |
| Litigation | 40 |
| Banking | 35 |
| Remedies | 30 |
| Costs | 25 |
| Commercial Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Litigation
- Financial Services
- Professional Negligence