Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Division of Matrimonial Assets

Wee Chiaw Sek Anna sued Ng Li-Ann Genevieve, the executrix of Ng Hock Seng's estate, and BNP Paribas Jersey Trust Corporation Limited, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation by the deceased regarding his assets during their divorce proceedings. Wee claimed the deceased concealed his wealth, preventing her from seeking a division of matrimonial assets. The High Court of Singapore dismissed Wee's claims, finding no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation and noting her delay in bringing the suit.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claims dismissed with costs to the defendants.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Ex-wife sues deceased ex-husband's estate for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding assets during divorce. The court dismissed the claims, finding no misrepresentation.

1.7 Decision Date

27 September 2012

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Wee Chiaw Sek Anna	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Indranee Rajah of Drew & Napier LLC Alex Toh of Drew & Napier LLC Angeline Tan of Drew & Napier LLC
Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased)	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Deborah Barker of KhattarWong LLP Ushan Premaratne of KhattarWong LLP Leon Le Lyn of KhattarWong LLP
BNP Paribas Jersey Trust Corporation Limited	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Nakul Dewan of Allen & Gledhill LLP Tham Hsu Hsien of Allen & Gledhill LLP Edwin Tong of Allen & Gledhill LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Indranee Rajah	Drew & Napier LLC
Alex Toh	Drew & Napier LLC
Angeline Tan	Drew & Napier LLC
Deborah Barker	KhattarWong LLP
Ushan Premaratne	KhattarWong LLP
Leon Le Lyn	KhattarWong LLP
Nakul Dewan	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Tham Hsu Hsien	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Edwin Tong	Allen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff sued the estate of her ex-husband for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding his assets during their divorce.
Plaintiff claimed the deceased concealed his wealth, preventing her from seeking a division of matrimonial assets.
The deceased had established several trusts with substantial assets, including the 1999 BNP Trust and the 2002 BNP Trust.
Plaintiff alleged the deceased misrepresented his financial status in his affidavit of means during the divorce proceedings.
The deceased's assets were primarily derived from contracts with Meissner & Wurst and Interconnect Sdn Bhd.
The plaintiff did not apply for a division of matrimonial assets during the divorce, believing the deceased had no assets.
The court found that the plaintiff delayed commencing the suit for an unreasonable amount of time.

5. Formal Citations

Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another, Suit No 1002 of 2009, [2012] SGHC 197

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1986-01-01	Plaintiff and deceased met.
1988-12-19	Plaintiff and deceased married in Singapore.
1989-02-07	Son, Joshua Ng Wei Huong, born.
1990-10-17	Daughter, Azura Ng Su-Ann, born.
1990-01-01	Couple relocated to Kuching, Sarawak.
1992-11-01	Plaintiff purchased a house at Jalan Stampin, Sarawak.
1993-03-01	Couple moved into plaintiff’s house.
1993-01-01	Deceased diagnosed with tongue cancer.
1993-01-01	Couple made several trips to China for deceased’s treatment.
1998-04-24	Deceased entered into agreement with Meissner & Wurst.
1998-07-01	Deceased entered into another agreement with Meissner & Wurst.
1998-10-01	Plaintiff filed divorce proceedings.
1998-10-28	Armanee Assets Limited incorporated.
1998-11-30	Incident of violence occurred.
1998-12-07	Parties entered into a separation agreement.
1999-01-04	Deceased became client of Paribas Asset Management Group Asia.
1999-01-07	Declaration of trust made by Emmanuel Services Limited.
1999-03-10	Prominent Market Investments Limited incorporated.
1999-03-30	Meissner & Wurst and Meissner & Wurst Zander signed contracts with First Silicon.
1999-04-23	First trust established.
1999-04-27	District Court granted plaintiff a decree nisi.
2000-02-28	Court awarded plaintiff sole custody, care and control of the children.
2000-10-06	Decree nisi made absolute.
2001-07-01	Deceased entered into tenancy agreement with Prominent.
2002-04-01	BNP Paribas opened a Singapore branch.
2002-06-14	Deceased established another trust in the Jersey Islands.
2003-09-12	Second defendant replaced BPITL as trustees of the 1999 BNP Trust.
2003-10-14	Second defendant passed a resolution to make a capital distribution to the first defendant.
2003-11-07	Deceased and Joshua met with representatives of BNP.
2004-04-27	Deceased executed his Last Will and Testament.
2004-04-28	Deceased set up a third trust.
2004-06-15	Deceased passed away.
2004-08-04	Plaintiff informed by Merrill Lynch of the ML Trust.
2004-08-09	Plaintiff received letter from Merrill Lynch regarding the ML Trust.
2004-08-10	Plaintiff informed of the 1999 BNP Trust.
2004-09-03	Plaintiff received email regarding the 1999 BNP Trust.
2004-10-01	Plaintiff received a copy of the 1999 BNP Trust.
2004-12-04	Plaintiff received statement showing the value of the 1999 BNP Trust.
2005-03-01	Plaintiff commenced proceedings against the first defendant to recover the agreed debt.
2005-06-01	Shute met with the plaintiff and the children.
2005-07-01	Prominent requested payment of rent arrears.
2005-07-29	Board of Directors of Prominent and Armanee resolved to destroy previous annual accounts.
2005-10-17	Shute sent the redrafted accounts to the plaintiff.
2005-11-07	Plaintiff received the financial statements of the 1999 BNP Trust.
2006-03-27	Plaintiff’s solicitors informed of the amounts in the 1999 BNP Trust.
2008-08-01	Armanee’s directors wrote off a loan extended to the deceased.
2009-11-26	Plaintiff commenced this suit.
2010-02-01	Second defendant commenced proceedings in the Jersey courts.
2010-05-01	Second defendant’s solicitors informed the plaintiff of the directions of the Jersey courts.
2011-09-12	Jersey courts ordered that the second defendant should continue to contest the plaintiff’s claims.
2012-09-28	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - False representation of fact
  - Intention to induce reliance
  - Actual reliance
  - Resulting damage
- Related Cases:
  - [1889] 14 App Cas 337
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196
  - [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
Division of Matrimonial Assets
- Outcome: The court held that the assets in question were not matrimonial assets and that it no longer had the power to divide matrimonial assets after the death of a party.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Definition of matrimonial assets
  - Valuation of assets
  - Contributions of each party
  - Needs of the children
- Related Cases:
  - [1992] 1 SLR(R) 252
Laches
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff's claim was barred by laches due to her unreasonable delay in commencing the proceedings, which prejudiced the defendants.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unreasonable delay
  - Acquiescence
  - Prejudice to the defendant
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 2 SLR(R) 417
  - [1998] 1 SLR(R) 903
  - [1994] 1 SLR(R) 765
Remedial Constructive Trust
- Outcome: The court held that a remedial constructive trust could not be imposed because there was no identifiable fund and the plaintiff failed to prove unjust enrichment or unconscionability.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unjust enrichment
  - Unconscionability
  - Identifiable fund
- Related Cases:
  - [2001] 3 SLR 10

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for Fraud
Remedial Constructive Trust
Restitution

9. Cause of Actions

Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Unjust Enrichment

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Trust Litigation
Family Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Derry v Peek	House of Lords	Yes	[1889] 14 App Cas 337	England and Wales	Cited for the requirements of fraudulent misrepresentation in the tort of deceit.
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midlands Co	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 196	Singapore	Cited for reaffirming the requirements in Derry v Peek for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR(R) 435	Singapore	Cited for reaffirming the requirements in Derry v Peek for fraudulent misrepresentation.
Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR 10	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a lack of an identifiable fund is fatal to a claim for a remedial constructive trust.
Koh Cheong Heng v Ho Yee Fong	Singapore High Court	No	[2011] 3 SLR 125	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that the court has discretion to impose a remedial constructive trust where justice and good conscience demands, but ultimately not applied in this case.
Ho Kon Kim v Lim Gek Kim	Singapore High Court	No	[2001] 3 SLR(R) 220	Singapore	Cited for the proposition that the court has discretion to impose a remedial constructive trust where justice and good conscience demands, but ultimately not applied in this case.
Wong Yuk Fong Lily v Menzes Ignatius Augustine	Singapore High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 252	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court no longer has the power to divide matrimonial assets once a party to the divorce is dead.
Re Estate of Tan Kow Quee	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 417	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a claim can be defeated by laches even if not time-barred.
British and Malayan Trustees Ltd v Sindo Realty Pte Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR(R) 903	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a claim can be defeated by laches even if not time-barred.
Tay Joo Sing v Ku Yu Sang	Singapore Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] 1 SLR(R) 765	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a claim can be defeated by laches even if not time-barred.
Comboni Vincenzo & Anor v Shankar’s Emporium (Pte) Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR(R) 1020	Singapore	Cited for the requirements to succeed in a claim against the second defendant in unjust enrichment.
Stafford v Stafford	Court of Chancery	Yes	[1857] 44 ER 697	England and Wales	Cited for the proposition that a presumption of knowledge of her rights arose against the plaintiff who knew enough relevant facts and could have/should have pursued her claim.
Allcard v Skinner	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1887] 36 Ch D 145	England and Wales	Cited for the proposition that a presumption of knowledge of her rights arose against the plaintiff who knew enough relevant facts and could have/should have pursued her claim.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Women’s Charter	Singapore
Evidence Act	Singapore
Limitations Act	Singapore
Rules of Court	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Matrimonial Assets
Remedial Constructive Trust
Laches
BNP Trusts
ML Trust
Separation Agreement
Decree Nisi
Affidavit of Means
Executrix
Trustee
Commingling of Funds

15.2 Keywords

fraudulent misrepresentation
matrimonial assets
trusts
divorce
laches
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Fraud and Deceit	90
Division of Matrimonial Property	85
Family Law	75
Trust Law	60
Property Law	40
Contract Law	30
Civil Procedure	25
Corporate Law	15

16. Subjects

Family Law
Trusts
Fraud
Civil Litigation