Nitine Jantilal v BNP Paribas: Breach of Contractual Duty of Care & FIS Account
In Nitine Jantilal v BNP Paribas Wealth Management, the High Court of Singapore heard a claim by Nitine Jantilal against BNP Paribas for losses in his Financial Investors’ Scheme (FIS) account. Jantilal alleged breach of various duties by the bank. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, dismissed the claim, finding that while the bank owed a contractual duty of care, there was no proven breach or causation of loss. The court also rejected the application for an account, citing the plaintiff's awareness of transactions made by authorized signatories and the bank's compliance with the hold mail arrangement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Nitine Jantilal sued BNP Paribas for losses in his FIS account, alleging breach of duties. The court dismissed the claim, finding no breach of contractual duty.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BNP Paribas Wealth Management | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Nitine Jantilal | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff commenced action against defendant bank due to reduction in value of his account.
- Plaintiff sought an account of all transactions and damages for losses.
- Defendant bank is an exempt financial adviser serving high net worth individuals.
- Plaintiff established an account with the defendant on 7 November 2002.
- Plaintiff authorized his father, uncle, and cousin to operate the account.
- Plaintiff placed the bank account under a hold mail arrangement.
- Plaintiff's existing account was designated as his FIS account from 28 March 2006 onwards.
- Plaintiff's application for permanent residency under the FIS was approved on 3 April 2006.
- Jayes authorized most of the specific asset transactions.
- Plaintiff amended the mandate given to Jayes on 16 May 2008 such that Jayes could not make any withdrawals from the FIS account by himself.
5. Formal Citations
- Nitine Jantilal v BNP Paribas Wealth Management, Suit No 1048 of 2009/D, [2012] SGHC 28
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff established an account with the defendant. | |
| Plaintiff added his cousin, Baskar Damodar Jayes, as an authorized signatory. | |
| Plaintiff's existing account was designated as his FIS account. | |
| Plaintiff’s application for permanent residency under the FIS was approved. | |
| Plaintiff amended the mandate given to Jayes. | |
| Plaintiff cancelled the hold mail arrangement. | |
| Plaintiff instructed the defendant to transfer monies from the FIS Account to a new account. | |
| Plaintiff instructed that Jayes be removed as an authorised signatory of the FIS account. | |
| Plaintiff authorized the defendant to disclose all information and documents in relation to the account to Jayes. | |
| The second FIS account was set up. | |
| Plaintiff instructed the defendant that he would collect all bank statements, trade confirmations and advices at its premises on a monthly basis. | |
| Plaintiff instructed the defendant to transfer all the monies and assets from the original FIS account to the second FIS account. | |
| New instructions were given that all mail were to be held by the defendant for the plaintiff’s collection on a monthly basis. | |
| Plaintiff’s instructions were executed, with both accounts coming under the FIS. | |
| The two accounts with the defendant were closed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contractual Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant owed the plaintiff a contractual duty of care, but the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant breached this duty.
- Category: Substantive
- Fiduciary Duty
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant did not owe the plaintiff any fiduciary duty.
- Category: Substantive
- Conclusive Evidence Clause
- Outcome: The court found that the conclusive evidence clause did not bar the plaintiff from making his claim in relation to the FIS account.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Account of all transactions
- Damages for losses
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Breach of Duty of Care
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Banking Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jiang Ou v EFG Bank AG | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 246 | Singapore | Cited regarding the effect of a conclusive evidence clause in a bank's standard contractual documentation on a FIS account. |
| Press Automation Technology Pte Ltd v Trans-Link Exhibition Forwarding Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 712 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that onerous and unusual conditions cannot be incorporated unless the attention of the party sought to be bound has been specifically drawn to them does not apply to a case where there is a signed contract with an explicit incorporating clause. |
| Susilawati v American Express Bank Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 237 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the relationship between a bank and its customer is a contractual one and that the bank does not, generally, owe fiduciary duties to its customers. |
| Cook v Evatt (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1992] 1 NZLR 676 | New Zealand | Cited for the principle that the essence of a fiduciary relationship is an inequality of bargaining power brought about by the trust or confidence reposed in, and accepted by, the fiduciary to perform some function for another's benefit in circumstances where the beneficiary lacks the power adequately to control or supervise the exercise of that function. |
| Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 39 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the correct question was not whether the Respondent owed the Appellant a tortious duty to advise, but whether the Respondent owed the Appellant a tortious duty to take reasonable care in rendering services to him and following his instructions. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Financial Advisers Act (Cap 110, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 100(2) of the Financial Advisers Act (Cap 110, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Unfair Contracts Term Act (Cap 396, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| ss 2(1) and 23(1)(a) of the FAA | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Financial Investors’ Scheme
- FIS account
- Exempt financial adviser
- Hold mail arrangement
- Authorised signatory
- Conclusive evidence clause
- Standard clauses
- Specific asset transactions
- Swap transactions
15.2 Keywords
- FIS account
- Financial Investors Scheme
- Breach of duty
- Banking
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Financial Investors’ Scheme (FIS) | 90 |
| Banking Law | 80 |
| Banking and Finance | 75 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Agency Law | 50 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 40 |
| Trust Law | 30 |
| Hold Mail Arrangement | 30 |
| Misrepresentation | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Banking
- Financial Services
- Contract Law