Tang Ying v Chen Mingliang: Mareva Injunction, Misrepresentation & Fiduciary Duty
In Suit No 89 of 2018, the Singapore High Court addressed claims by Tang Ying and six other plaintiffs against Chen Mingliang, Niu Liming, and Furong Investments Pte Ltd for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duties, and conspiracy related to investments in Furong Bonds. The plaintiffs sought a Mareva injunction, which was initially granted but later challenged by the first defendant, Chen Mingliang. The court varied the injunction, lifting it against a specific property (the Sound Property) but granting the plaintiffs leave to file a caveat against it. The court's decision considered allegations of wrongdoing by both sides and aimed to balance the interests of all parties.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Injunction varied; leave granted to file a caveat against the Sound Property.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving claims of misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duties, and conspiracy related to Furong Bonds investments. The court varied an injunction order.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tang Ying | Plaintiff | Individual | Injunction varied | Partial | |
| Bai Jiaming | Plaintiff | Individual | Injunction varied | Partial | |
| Liu Jianjian | Plaintiff | Individual | Injunction varied | Partial | |
| Zhong Zijun | Plaintiff | Individual | Injunction varied | Partial | |
| Tan See Hwa | Plaintiff | Individual | Injunction varied | Partial | |
| Chen Jiangnan | Plaintiff | Individual | Injunction varied | Partial | |
| Zhang Haibo | Plaintiff | Individual | Injunction varied | Partial | |
| Chen Mingliang | Defendant | Individual | Injunction varied | Neutral | |
| Niu Liming | Defendant | Individual | Neutral | Neutral | |
| Furong Investments Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Neutral | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Senior Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs sued the defendants for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duties, and conspiracy related to certain investments.
- Plaintiffs applied for a Mareva injunction against the first defendant and Furong in the amount of US$2.44m.
- The injunction application was initially granted by the court.
- The first defendant applied to set aside the injunction order.
- The injunction was not discharged but varied such that the injunction order granted against the first defendant’s penthouse was lifted.
- The plaintiffs were granted liberty to file a caveat against the Sound Property.
- The first defendant applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal against the court’s decision in the Discharge Application.
5. Formal Citations
- Tang Ying and others v Chen Mingliang and others, Suit No 89 of 2018(Summons No 1135 of 2018), [2018] SGHC 226
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| CVHT defaulted on payment to Furong | |
| Police report lodged against CVHT | |
| Furong's solicitors sent a letter to CYC denying liability based on the default clause | |
| First plaintiff met with the second defendant | |
| First defendant's solicitors seized documents from Furong's office; second defendant dismissed by Furong | |
| First plaintiff's employment terminated by Furong | |
| Furong wrote to the fifth plaintiff denying liability, relying on the default clause | |
| Second defendant filed a winding-up petition against Furong | |
| Solicitors approached as alleged auditors of Furong denied ever acting as Furong's auditors | |
| First defendant filed an application for an extension of time to file his response affidavit in the winding-up proceedings | |
| First plaintiff's solicitors issued a redemption notice to Furong | |
| First plaintiff discovered advertisements to sell The Sound Property | |
| Plaintiffs filed the injunction application | |
| Court granted the injunction application | |
| Lee Yung-Ho made a statutory declaration | |
| Second defendant entered an appearance to the writ | |
| First defendant filed an affidavit in support of the Discharge Application | |
| Jiang Nina filed an affidavit | |
| First plaintiff filed an affidavit to resist the Discharge Application | |
| Second defendant filed his defence | |
| Second defendant filed an affidavit in the winding-up proceedings | |
| First defendant filed a reply affidavit | |
| Khoo Shuzhen Jolyn's affidavit filed | |
| Discharge Application heard by the court | |
| Discharge Application heard by the court | |
| Court varied the injunction order and granted the Leave Application |
7. Legal Issues
- Whether the injunction order was brought for a collateral purpose
- Outcome: The court found that neither side could claim to be the innocent party.
- Category: Procedural
- Whether there was a risk of dissipation of assets
- Outcome: The court was wary of accepting the first defendant's word and found the risk of dissipation to be a factor.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether the plaintiffs had a good arguable case for misrepresentation, breach of fiduciary duties, and conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that there was a serious question to be tried.
- Category: Substantive
- Application of the balance of convenience test
- Outcome: The court applied the balance of convenience test and varied the injunction order.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Mareva Injunction
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of Fiduciary Duties
- Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Art Trend Ltd v Blue Dolphin (Pte) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1981–1982] SLR(R) 633 | Singapore | Cited regarding the argument that the injunction order was brought for a collateral purpose. |
| Bouvier, Yves Charles Edgar and another v Accent Delight International Ltd and another and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 558 | Singapore | Cited regarding the argument that the injunction order was brought for a collateral purpose. |
| Meespierson NV v Industrial and Commercial Bank of Vietnam | N/A | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 287 | Singapore | Cited to contend that a Mareva injunction should not be used to obtain security for a plaintiff’s claim unless there was a real risk of the defendant dissipating his assets. |
| Guan Chong Cocoa Manufacturer Sdn Bhd v Pratiwi Shipping SA | N/A | Yes | [2003] 1 SLR(R) 157 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that there must be some ‘solid evidence’ to substantiate the alleged risk of dissipation of assets. |
| Choy Chee Keen Collin v Public Utilities Board | N/A | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 812 | Singapore | Cited to support the argument that it was an abuse of process to use a Mareva injunction to obtain security for a claim. |
| American Cyanamid Co v Ethicon Ltd | UK House of Lords | Yes | [1975] AC 396 | United Kingdom | Cited for the 'balance of convenience' test. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 2007 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mareva Injunction
- Furong Bonds
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Dissipation of Assets
- Balance of Convenience
- Caveat
- Sound Property
- Collateral Purpose
- Full and Frank Disclosure
15.2 Keywords
- Injunction
- Misrepresentation
- Fiduciary Duty
- Singapore
- Investment
- Bonds
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Mareva Injunction | 95 |
| Injunctions | 90 |
| Misrepresentation | 60 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 50 |
| Conspiracy by Unlawful Means | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
| Contract Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Injunctions
- Civil Litigation
- Investment Law