Lo Man Heng v UBS AG: Breach of Mandate & Unauthorised Payments

Lo Man Heng and Zenique Investments Ltd sued UBS AG in the High Court of Singapore, alleging wrongful payment of account balances to a third party, Yap Loo Mien. The plaintiffs claimed UBS breached its mandate by acting on unauthorized instructions. UBS argued the payments were authorized by Lo Man Heng. The court, Prakash J, dismissed the plaintiffs' claim, finding that the instructions to close the accounts and pay the funds to Yap Loo Mien were indeed given by Lo Man Heng.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' claim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Malaysian businessman Lo Man Heng sues UBS for wrongful payment to a third party. The court found UBS did not breach its mandate.

1.7 Decision Date

9 July 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
UBS AG	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Chua Sui Tong of WongPartnership LLP Daniel Tan of WongPartnership LLP Andre Maniam SC of WongPartnership LLP
Lo Man Heng	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	James Ponniah of Wong & Lim Leong Sue Lynn of Wong & Lim Adam Ong of Ascentsia Law Corporation
Zenique Investments Ltd	Plaintiff	Corporation	Claim Dismissed	Lost	James Ponniah of Wong & Lim Leong Sue Lynn of Wong & Lim Adam Ong of Ascentsia Law Corporation
Yap Loo Mien	Third Party	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Won	Hu Huimin of Colin Ng & Partners LLP See Tow Soo Ling of Colin Ng & Partners LLP Zara Mok of Colin Ng & Partners LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Judith Prakash	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chua Sui Tong	WongPartnership LLP
Daniel Tan	WongPartnership LLP
Andre Maniam SC	WongPartnership LLP
James Ponniah	Wong & Lim
Leong Sue Lynn	Wong & Lim
Adam Ong	Ascentsia Law Corporation
Hu Huimin	Colin Ng & Partners LLP
See Tow Soo Ling	Colin Ng & Partners LLP
Zara Mok	Colin Ng & Partners LLP

4. Facts

The plaintiffs were customers of UBS.
In September 2007, the plaintiffs' accounts with UBS were closed.
The plaintiffs claimed UBS wrongfully paid the balances to a third party, Yap Loo Mien.
UBS claimed the payments were authorized by the plaintiffs.
Mr. Lo signed written instructions to close the accounts in November 2007.
Mr. Lo opened another account with UBS after the alleged unauthorized payments.
Mr. Lo authorized payments from his new account to a company owned by Mdm. Yap.

5. Formal Citations

Lo Man Heng and another v UBS AG (Yap Loo Mien, third party), Suit No 752 of 2010, [2014] SGHC 134

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-01-01	Dennis Chua employed by UBS Singapore branch as a client advisor.
2007-09-16	Mr. Lo and Mr. Chia released from MACC custody.
2007-09-17	Oral instructions given to close the Accounts and transfer balances to Mdm Yap.
2007-09-18	Cheques issued payable to Mdm Yap.
2007-11-04	Mr. Lo met with Dennis Chua at the Shangri-La Hotel.
2007-11-07	Mr. Lo opened another account with UBS in the name of G-Assets Ltd.
2008-03-25	Mr. Lo authorized payments from his G-Assets account to Ravenswood Development Ltd.
2010-09-30	Action started against UBS.
2012-06-01	Blisstop struck out as a plaintiff.
2014-07-10	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Mandate
- Outcome: The court held that UBS did not breach its mandate as the instructions to close the accounts and transfer the funds were given by Mr. Lo.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unauthorized Payments
  - Failure to Verify Instructions
Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that even if the payments were unauthorized, the plaintiffs were estopped from prosecuting their claim due to their silence and failure to promptly inform UBS of the unauthorized payments.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Representation by Conduct
  - Detriment
Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found that if UBS had been found liable to the plaintiffs, it could have recovered the moneys paid to Mdm Yap based on unjust enrichment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Benefit Received
  - At the Expense Of
  - Unjust Factor

8. Remedies Sought

Reimbursement of Unauthorized Payments
Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Breach of Fiduciary Duty

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Banking Litigation

11. Industries

Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Pertamina Energy Trading Limited v Credit Suisse	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR(R) 273	Singapore	Cited for the requirements of an operative estoppel.
Greenwood (Pauper) v Martins Bank, Limited	N/A	Yes	[1933] 1 AC 51	N/A	Cited for the principle that silence can amount to a representation if there is a duty to speak.
Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito	Court of Appeal	No	[2013] 4 SLR 308	Singapore	Cited regarding the legal requirement that an unjust enrichment claim must be premised on an 'unjust factor'.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Breach of Mandate
Unauthorized Payments
Estoppel
Unjust Enrichment
Account Mandate
Payment Instruction Forms

15.2 Keywords

Banking
Breach of Mandate
UBS
Unauthorized Payments
Estoppel
Singapore
High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Banking and Finance	70
Breach of Contract	60
Unjust Enrichment	60
Estoppel	50
Contract Law	50
Agency Law	40
Misrepresentation	30

16. Subjects

Banking
Finance
Contract Law