Tee Yok Kiat v Pang Min Seng: Trust Claim, Blackmail, Tort of Intimidation and Harassment
In Tee Yok Kiat v Pang Min Seng, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal by Tee Yok Kiat (“Sarah”) against the High Court's decision to dismiss her trust claim and blackmail claim against Pang Min Seng (“Andy”). Sarah had claimed that Andy held $608,700 in trust for her to invest in China and that he extorted $50,000 from her through intimidation and harassment. The High Court dismissed these claims, but the Court of Appeal allowed Sarah’s appeal, finding that the money was indeed held in trust and that Andy was liable for the tort of intimidation. The court awarded Sarah judgment for $608,700 for the trust claim and $50,000 for the blackmail claim.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding trust claim, blackmail, and tort claims. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding in favor of Tee Yok Kiat.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tee Yok Kiat | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Ong Pei Ching, Joseph Yeo |
| Pang Min Seng | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Uthayasurian Sidambaram, Ramesh s/o Varathappan |
| Tee Yok Lee | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Sundaresh Menon | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ong Pei Ching | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Joseph Yeo | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Uthayasurian Sidambaram | Surian & Partners |
| Ramesh s/o Varathappan | Surian & Partners |
4. Facts
- Sarah gave Andy $608,700 to invest in land and property in China.
- Sarah claimed Andy was to hold the money on trust for her.
- Andy claimed the money was a gift due to an intimate relationship.
- Sarah gave Andy $50,000 after alleged intimidation and harassment.
- Sarah made a police report stating Andy would invest the money in China to buy a restaurant and land on her behalf.
- Andy selectively disclosed SMS messages and claimed to have deleted others.
- Sarah sent SMS messages to Andy calling him "lazy" and a "paria dog."
5. Formal Citations
- Tee Yok Kiat v Pang Min Seng, Civil Appeal No 52 of 2012 and Summons No 4377 of 2012, [2013] SGCA 9
- Tee Yok Kiat and another v Pang Min Seng and another, , [2012] 4 SLR 89
- Tee Yok Kiat and another v Pang Min Seng and another, Suit No 589 of 2009, [2012] SGHC 85
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Sarah met Andy. | |
| Andy introduced Sarah to Tik. | |
| Sarah gave an option to sell her shophouse. | |
| Andy told Sarah about an opportunity to purchase the Shenyang Shop. | |
| Sarah gave Andy $80,000 as part payment for the Shenyang Shop. | |
| Sarah gave the remainder of the deposit ($40,000) to Andy. | |
| Andy told Sarah about the loan application failure and other expenses. | |
| Sarah gave Andy $210,000 and $100,000 as part payment towards the Outstanding Sum. | |
| Sarah gave Andy $230,000 as the final instalment of the Outstanding Sum. | |
| Andy told Sarah that he was facing cash-flow problems. | |
| Sarah gave $40,000 to Andy to help with the cash-flow problems. | |
| Andy returned from China. | |
| Sarah gave $50,000 to Andy. | |
| Sarah made a police report. | |
| Original Statement of Claim was filed. | |
| Statement of Claim was amended for the second time. | |
| Appellant’s Case was filed and served on Andy. | |
| Respondent’s Case was filed. | |
| Court of Appeal allowed Sarah’s appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Express Trust
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that Andy breached the express trust by not applying the Trust Money in accordance with his equitable duties as a trustee.
- Category: Substantive
- Tort of Intimidation
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the tort of intimidation was made out, as Sarah paid $50,000 to Andy due to his threats.
- Category: Substantive
- Tort of Harassment
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal found that the tort of harassment was also made out on the evidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Extension of Time for Filing Respondent's Case
- Outcome: The Court of Appeal allowed the extension of time for filing the Respondent's Case, considering the length of the delay, reasons for the delay, chances of success, and degree of prejudice.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Return of Trust Money
- Damages for Intimidation
- Damages for Harassment
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Express Trust
- Tort of Intimidation
- Tort of Harassment
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1970] AC 567 | England and Wales | Cited to define the Quistclose resulting trust. |
| Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 1 SLR(R) 757 | Singapore | Cited for the factors the court will weigh when considering whether to grant leave for a Respondent’s Case to be heard pursuant to O 57 r 9A of the Rules of Court. |
| Goh Chok Tong v Chee Soon Juan | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 32 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to prove the tort of intimidation. |
| Malcomson Nicholas Hugh Bertram and another v Mehta Naresh Kumar | High Court | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 379 | Singapore | Cited for the existence and elements of the tort of harassment. |
| Tee Yok Kiat and another v Pang Min Seng and another | High Court | Yes | [2012] SGHC 85 | Singapore | The decision from which this appeal arose. The Court of Appeal overturned the High Court's decision regarding the trust and blackmail claims. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 57 r 9A of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Trust Money
- Blackmail Money
- Shenyang Shop
- Airport Land
- Intimidation
- Harassment
- Express Trust
- Resulting Trust
- Gift
- SMS Messages
15.2 Keywords
- trust
- intimidation
- harassment
- appeal
- singapore
- contractor
- fortune teller
- relationship
16. Subjects
- Trusts
- Torts
- Civil Litigation
- Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Trust Law
- Tort Law
- Intimidation
- Harassment
- Civil Procedure