Tee Yok Kiat v Pang Min Seng: Trust, Blackmail, and Breach of Contract Claims
In Tee Yok Kiat and another v Pang Min Seng and another, the High Court of Singapore addressed claims involving Ms. Tee Yok Kiat and her sister Ms Tee Yok Lee, against Mr. Pang Min Seng and Ms. Poh Saipin. The claims included a breach of trust and blackmail claim by Ms. Tee Yok Kiat against Mr. Pang Min Seng, and a breach of contract claim by both plaintiffs against Ms. Poh Saipin. The court, presided over by Justice Steven Chong, dismissed the trust and blackmail claims, finding that the monies were given as a gift. However, the court found Ms. Poh Saipin liable for fraudulent misrepresentation in the contract claim and granted interlocutory judgment for damages to be assessed and rescission of the agreement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Partial Judgment for Plaintiffs; Trust and Blackmail Claims Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case involving trust, blackmail, and contract claims. The court dismissed the trust and blackmail claims but allowed the contract claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tee Yok Kiat | Plaintiff | Individual | Trust and Blackmail Claims Dismissed, Interlocutory Judgment for Damages to be Assessed | Lost, Partial | Adrian Tan, Ong Pei Ching |
| Tee Yok Lee | Plaintiff | Individual | Interlocutory Judgment for Damages to be Assessed | Partial | Adrian Tan, Ong Pei Ching |
| Pang Min Seng | Defendant | Individual | Claims Dismissed | Won | |
| Poh Saipin | Defendant | Individual | Trust Claim Dismissed, Interlocutory Judgment for Damages to be Assessed | Won, Lost | Uthayasurian s/o Sidambaram, M S Rajendran, Ramesh s/o Varathappan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Steven Chong | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Adrian Tan | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Ong Pei Ching | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Uthayasurian s/o Sidambaram | Surian & Partners |
| M S Rajendran | Surian & Partners |
| Ramesh s/o Varathappan | Surian & Partners |
4. Facts
- Sarah paid Andy a total of $608,700 in several tranches between May and September 2005.
- Sarah claimed the money was for investment in a shop and land in China.
- Andy claimed the money was a gift due to an intimate relationship with Sarah.
- Sarah and Andy took trips to Bangkok and Malacca together.
- Sarah and Tik entered into an agreement for the plaintiffs to invest in Tik's business.
- The agreement involved the plaintiffs paying $79,000 for a 50% share of Tik's business.
- The plaintiffs claimed Tik made fraudulent representations to induce them into the agreement.
5. Formal Citations
- Tee Yok Kiat and another v Pang Min Seng and another, Suit No 589 of 2009, [2012] SGHC 85
- Tee Yok Kiat and another v Pang Min Seng and another, Civil Appeal No 52 of 2012 and Summons No 4377 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 9
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First payment of $83,700 made by Sarah to Andy | |
| Second payment of $45,000 made by Sarah to Andy | |
| Third payment of $210,000 made by Sarah to Andy | |
| Fourth payment of $230,000 made by Sarah to Andy | |
| Fifth payment of $40,000 made by Sarah to Andy | |
| Agreement entered into between the plaintiffs and Tik | |
| Sarah paid Andy $50,000 | |
| Sarah filed original statement of claim | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Trust
- Outcome: The court found no breach of trust as the money was given as a gift.
- Category: Substantive
- Resulting Trust
- Outcome: The court found no resulting trust as the money was given as a gift.
- Category: Substantive
- Harassment and Intimidation
- Outcome: The court found no harassment or intimidation as the money was given as a gift.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that Tik breached clause (f) of the Agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that Tik made fraudulent misrepresentations to induce the plaintiffs to enter into the Agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Implied Terms
- Outcome: The court found that the implied term was inconsistent with the Agreement.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Rescission of Contract
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Express Trust
- Resulting Trust
- Conspiracy
- Dishonest Assistance
- Knowing Receipt
- Unjust Enrichment
- Tort of Harassment and Intimidation
- Breach of Contract
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Breach of Contract
- Trusts
- Fraud
11. Industries
- Retail
- Fashion
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council | House of Lords | Yes | [1996] AC 669 | United Kingdom | Cited for the exposition of the two types of resulting trusts. |
| Lau Siew Kim v Yeo Guan Chye Terence and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 108 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a resulting trust is presumed to arise due to a voluntary payment. |
| Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1970] AC 567 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle of Quistclose trust. |
| Singapore Tourism Board v Children's Media Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 981 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a Quistclose trust does not only arise in a situation where money was paid as a loan for a specific purpose. |
| Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley and others | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 164 | United Kingdom | Cited for the analysis of Quistclose trust as a resulting trust. |
| Lin Chao-Feng v Chuang Hsin-Yi | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 427 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is possible for a resulting trust to arise even if an express trust is being mounted as the primary claim. |
| Close Invoice Finance Ltd v Abaowa | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2010] EWHC 1920 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an express trust was put forth as the primary case theory, with an alternative case theory premised on resulting trust analysis. |
| Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 1 SLR 457 | Singapore | Cited for the extent to which parties may plead alternative and inconsistent claims. |
| Chong Poh Siew v Chong Poh Heng | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 188 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that while a party has the right to plead inconsistent rights in the alternative, the alternatives cannot offend common sense and justice. |
| Brailsford v Tobie | Supreme Court of Victoria | Yes | (1888) 10 ALT 194 | Australia | Cited for the principle that alternative statements of fact are not permitted if one statement or the other must, to the knowledge of the pleader, be false. |
| Browne v Dunn | House of Lords | No | (1893) 6 R 67 | United Kingdom | Cited for the rule that a litigant is not required to put every aspect of his case to the witness. |
| Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 292 | Singapore | Cited for the rule that a litigant is not required to put every aspect of his case to the witness. |
| Kwee Seng Chio Peter v Biogenics Sdn Bhd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 2 SLR(R) 482 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a litigant need not put his case if the witness had clear notice that the issue is disputed. |
| Ng Chee Chuan v Ng Ai Tee (administratrix of the estate of Yap Yoon Moi, deceased) | Court of Appeal | No | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 918 | Singapore | Cited for the dangers of making findings of fact on the basis of the credibility of witnesses, particularly in relation to events which occurred some years ago. |
| Chua Choon Cheng and others v Allgreen Properties Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 724 | Singapore | Cited for the law on terms implied in fact. |
| Jet Holding Ltd v Cooper Cameron (Singapore) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 769 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a court will not lightly imply a term into a contract. |
| Hiap Hong & Co Pte Ltd v Hong Huat Development Co (Pte) Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 458 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the touchstone for implying a term into a contract is always necessity and not merely reasonableness. |
| Forefront Medical Technology (Pte) Ltd v Modern-Pak Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 927 | Singapore | Cited for the officious bystander and business efficacy test. |
| Ng Giap Hon v Westcomb Securities Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 518 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a term cannot be implied into a contract if it is inconsistent with an express term of the contract. |
| RDC Concrete Pte Ltd v Sato Kogyo (S) Pte Ltd and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 413 | Singapore | Cited for the law on termination of contracts. |
| Hongkong Fir Shipping Co Ltd v Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1962] 2 QB 26 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a breach deprives the innocent party of substantially the whole benefit which it was intended that he should obtain from the contract. |
| Alliance Concrete Singapore Pte Ltd v Comfort Resources Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 602 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an innocent party is entitled to rely on a ground for terminating the contract even if it did not rely on that ground at the time of termination. |
| Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 909 | Singapore | Cited for the law on fraudulent misrepresentations. |
| Derry v Peek | House of Lords | Yes | (1889) 14 App Cas 337 | United Kingdom | Cited for the classic formulation of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation or deceit. |
| Chop Ban Kheng v Chop Siang Huah and Latham & Co | High Court | Yes | (1925) 2 MC 69 | Singapore | Cited for the principles enunciated in Derry v Peek. |
| Baker v Asia Motor Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1962] MLJ 425 | Malaysia | Cited for the principles enunciated in Derry v Peek. |
| Malayan Miners Co (M) Ltd v Lian Hock & Co | High Court | Yes | [1965-1967] SLR(R) 307 | Singapore | Cited for the principles enunciated in Derry v Peek. |
| Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland Co | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited for the principles enunciated in Derry v Peek. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of an action in fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Bradford Building Society v Borders | House of Lords | Yes | [1941] 2 All ER 205 | United Kingdom | Cited for the essentials of the tort of fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Chee Jok Heng Stephanie v Chang Yue Shoon | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 1131 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the plaintiffs are entitled to rescission of the Agreement. |
| 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 causation is an element that is relevant to the issue of liability. |
| Aldabe Fermin v Standard Chartered Bank | High Court | Yes | [2010] 3 SLR 722 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that as a litigant in person, Andy is entitled to a claim against Sarah for compensatory costs. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 59 r 18A of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Trust Money
- Blackmail Money
- Express Trust
- Resulting Trust
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Breach of Contract
- Intimate Relationship
- Shenyang Shop
- Airport Land
- POLICE brand apparel
- Sarah Design Pte Ltd
15.2 Keywords
- trust
- contract
- fraud
- misrepresentation
- blackmail
- gifts
- breach of contract
- resulting trust
- express trust
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Contracts
- Torts
- Fraud
- Commercial Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Trust Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation