ALS Memasa v UBS AG: Striking Out Claim for Account of Transactions & Damages

ALS Memasa and Tjo Bun Khai, customers of UBS AG, filed a claim in the High Court of Singapore for an account of all transactions carried out by UBS on their accounts and for damages. UBS applied to strike out the Statement of Claim, and the plaintiffs applied to amend it. The Assistant Registrar dismissed the plaintiffs’ application to amend and granted UBS’ application to strike out the Statement of Claim. Woo Bih Li J dismissed both appeals, finding the plaintiffs had abused the process of the court by putting forward a false case. The plaintiffs' claim was based on allegations of unauthorized transactions and misrepresentations, which the court found to be contradicted by evidence showing the plaintiffs had authorized many of the transactions. The court dismissed the appeals with costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals Dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed an appeal to amend a claim against UBS AG for an account of transactions and damages, finding the claim an abuse of process.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
UBS AGDefendant, RespondentCorporationAppeal UpheldWon
Als MemasaPlaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Tjo Bun KhaiPlaintiff, AppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Woo Bih LiJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Hri Kumar NairDrew & Napier LLC
Benedict TeoDrew & Napier LLC
Charmaine ChiuDrew & Napier LLC
N SreenivasanStraits Law Practice LLC
Sujatha SelvakumarStraits Law Practice LLC

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs claimed UBS managed their accounts negligently and without instruction.
  2. Plaintiffs alleged they believed their accounts were akin to fixed deposit accounts.
  3. UBS produced evidence showing plaintiffs authorized the transfer of investments.
  4. UBS showed plaintiffs instructed them to acquire CMS notes.
  5. UBS provided transcripts showing AM approved the purchase of RSB bonds.
  6. Plaintiffs received monthly statements and trade confirmations from UBS.
  7. Plaintiffs sought pre-action discovery, claiming they needed documents to formulate their case.

5. Formal Citations

  1. ALS Memasa and another v UBS AG, Suit No 935 of 2010 (Registrar's Appeal Nos 233 and 234 of 2011), [2012] SGHC 30
  2. Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs, , [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582
  3. Orient Centre Investments Ltd v Societe Generale, , [2007] 3 SLR(R) 566
  4. Soon Kok Tiang and others v DBS Bank Ltd and another matter, , [2011] SGCA 55

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiffs filed an application for pre-action discovery against UBS.
Court dismissed the plaintiffs' application for pre-action discovery.
Plaintiffs filed Suit 935/10 against UBS.
UBS filed its Defence.
Plaintiffs filed their Reply.
UBS filed Summons 613 of 2011 to strike out the Statement of Claim.
Assistant Registrar indicated inclination to allow striking out application in part.
Plaintiffs filed an application to amend the Statement of Claim.
Assistant Registrar dismissed the plaintiffs’ application to amend and granted UBS’ application to strike out the Statement of Claim.
First hearing of appeals before Woo Bih Li J.
Second hearing before Woo Bih Li J.
Court of Appeal issued decision in Soon Kok Tiang and others v DBS Bank Ltd.
AM filed her next affidavit.
Third hearing before Woo Bih Li J.
Appeals dismissed with costs.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Abuse of Process
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs had abused the process of the court by putting forward a false case.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • False case
      • Improper purpose
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs were precluded from relying on any misrepresentation because of the contractual terms.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unauthorised transactions
      • Misrepresentation
  3. Non est factum
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs' attempt to avoid the contractual terms was not a case of non est factum.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Lack of understanding of contract terms

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Account of all transactions
  2. Damages to be assessed

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Duty
  • Negligence
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Banking Litigation

11. Industries

  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home AffairsHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582SingaporeCited for the classification of abuse of process instances.
Orient Centre Investments Ltd v Societe GeneraleN/AYes[2007] 3 SLR(R) 566SingaporeCited regarding the preclusion of relying on representations due to contractual terms.
Soon Kok Tiang and others v DBS Bank Ltd and another matterCourt of AppealYes[2011] SGCA 55SingaporeCited for the principle that a person who signs a contract is bound by its terms, regardless of their understanding of the language.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Unfair Contract Terms Act (Cap 396 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Pre-action discovery
  • Statement of Claim
  • Abuse of process
  • Unauthorised transactions
  • Misrepresentation
  • Constant Maturity Swap notes
  • Dual Currency Investments
  • Margin call
  • Non est factum
  • Russian Standard Bank bonds

15.2 Keywords

  • UBS
  • bank
  • transactions
  • negligence
  • misrepresentation
  • abuse of process
  • striking out
  • banking
  • financial services

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misrepresentation85
Banking Law80
Banking and Finance75
Contract Law60
Breach of Contract60
Financial Products50
Commercial Litigation40
Customer Relationship30
Estoppel30
Summary Judgement20

16. Subjects

  • Banking
  • Financial Services
  • Civil Litigation