Rohini v Yeow & HSR: Vicarious Liability for Agent's Fraudulent Misappropriation

In Rohini d/o Balasubramaniam v Yeow Khim Whye Kelvin and HSR International Realtors Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the plaintiff's claim against HSR. The plaintiff sued both Kelvin Yeow Khim Whye and HSR International Realtors Pte Ltd for Kelvin's misappropriation of funds. The court found that the plaintiff's own negligence in providing blank cheques to Kelvin, her agent, was the direct cause of her loss, and therefore HSR was not vicariously liable or in breach of any duty of care. The judgment was delivered by Justice Chua Lee Ming on 28 June 2017.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claim Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiff sued HSR for agent's fraud. Court dismissed claim, finding plaintiff's negligence in giving blank cheques was the cause of loss.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Rohini d/o BalasubramaniamPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
HSR International Realtors Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon
Kelvin Yeow Khim WhyeDefendantIndividualJudgment in default of appearanceLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Justin James ZehnderEdmond Pereira Law Corporation
Pereira Edmond AvethasEdmond Pereira Law Corporation
Suang WijayaEugene Thuraisingam LLP
Eugene ThuraisingamEugene Thuraisingam LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff gave four blank cheques to Kelvin, a real estate agent representing HSR.
  2. Kelvin misappropriated the cheques for his own use.
  3. Plaintiff sued Kelvin and HSR to recover her loss.
  4. Plaintiff obtained judgment in default of appearance against Kelvin.
  5. Plaintiff claimed HSR was vicariously liable for Kelvin's fraudulent acts.
  6. Plaintiff claimed HSR breached its duty of care to her.
  7. The cheques were meant to pay the UOB loan, agency fees, legal fees and the rental deposit for the Tenancy.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Rohini d/o Balasubramaniam v Yeow Khim Whye Kelvin and another, Suit No 1167 of 2015, [2017] SGHC 149

6. Timeline

DateEvent
HSR acted for the plaintiff’s parents in the sale of their property at 6 Marine Vista #05-19, Neptune Court, Singapore and for the plaintiff’s father in the purchase of a property at 66 Bayshore Road #21-01, Bayshore Park, Singapore.
Plaintiff’s father passed away.
Plaintiff signed an agreement giving HSR the exclusive right to sell the Bayshore Park Property.
Plaintiff granted the purchasers an option to purchase the Bayshore Park Property.
The Bayshore Option was exercised by the purchasers.
Plaintiff was granted an option to purchase an apartment at Blk 297 Bedok South Avenue 3 #04-03, Bedok Court, Singapore.
Plaintiff exercised the Bedok Court Option.
Plaintiff applied for a housing loan from United Overseas Bank Limited and to use monies in her Central Provident Fund account.
UOB gave the plaintiff a loan of $650,000.
The CPF Board gave its approval for the plaintiff to use her CPF monies.
Plaintiff entered into a tenancy agreement to rent an apartment at 6 Marine Vista #09-25, Neptune Court, Singapore.
The sale of the Bayshore Park Property was completed.
The Bayshore Park Sale Proceeds were deposited into the plaintiff’s account with UOB.
Kelvin made payments of $300,000 to himself, $70,336 in cash, and $400,000 to himself.
Kelvin made a payment of $60,000 to one Sammi Ching May.
Plaintiff made a complaint to the Council for Estate Agencies against Kelvin.
Plaintiff made a police report against Kelvin.
The police informed the plaintiff’s present lawyers that they had decided “not to take further action against the accused”.
Plaintiff commenced the present action against Kelvin and HSR.
Plaintiff entered judgment in default of appearance against Kelvin.
I dismissed the plaintiff’s claim against HSR.
Judgment was delivered.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Vicarious Liability for Agent's Fraudulent Acts
    • Outcome: The court held that HSR was not vicariously liable for Kelvin's fraudulent acts because the plaintiff's own negligence was the direct cause of her loss.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Sufficient connection between the tortfeasor's conduct and the relationship with the defendant
      • Opportunity afforded to the tortfeasor to abuse power
      • Vulnerability of potential victims to wrongful exercise of power
    • Related Cases:
      • [2016] 4 SLR 373
      • [2011] 3 SLR 540
      • [2012] 3 WLR 1319
      • [1999] 2 SCR 534
  2. Breach of Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court held that HSR did not breach its duty of care to the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to supervise agent
      • Misrepresentation of agent's status
  3. Agency
    • Outcome: The court held that Kelvin's fraudulent acts were not within his authority as an agent of HSR.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Scope of agent's authority
      • Express, implied, or apparent authority

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraud
  • Breach of Duty of Care
  • Vicarious Liability

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Real Estate Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and anotherHigh CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 373SingaporeCited for the principle of vicarious liability and the two-stage approach to determining vicarious liability.
Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2011] 3 SLR 540SingaporeCited for the policy considerations underlying the doctrine of vicarious liability, including effective compensation for the victim and deterrence of future harm.
Various Claimants v Catholic Child Welfare SocietyUnknownYes[2012] 3 WLR 1319UnknownCited for the expansion of the doctrine of vicarious liability beyond the employer-employee relationship.
The Children’s Foundation, the Superintendent of Family and Child Services in the Province of British Columbia and Her Majesty The Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia as represented by the Ministry of Social Services and Housing v Patrick Allan BazleySupreme Court of CanadaYes[1999] 2 SCR 534CanadaCited for relevant factors to consider in determining whether a sufficient connection exists for vicarious liability.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Estate Agents Act (Cap 95A, 2011 Rev Ed)Singapore
Section 28 of the Estate Agents ActSingapore
Section 29 of the Estate Agents ActSingapore
Section 32(2)(c) of the Estate Agents ActSingapore
Legal Aid and Orders Act (Cap 160, 2014 Rev Ed)Singapore
Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Vicarious liability
  • Agency
  • Duty of care
  • Fraudulent misappropriation
  • Blank cheques
  • Sufficient connection
  • Moral culpability
  • Group Director

15.2 Keywords

  • Agency
  • Vicarious liability
  • Fraud
  • Real estate agent
  • Blank cheques
  • Negligence

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Torts80
Agency Law75
Vicarious liability65
Negligence60
Breach of Duty55
Principal45
Contract Law30
Personal Injury20
Corporate Law15

16. Subjects

  • Agency
  • Torts
  • Real Estate
  • Vicarious Liability