Haw Wan Sin v Sim Tee Meng: Negligent Misrepresentation & Agent Liability

Haw Wan Sin and Yee Ai Moi appealed against the District Court's decision in District Court Suit No 3237 of 2015, which dismissed their claims against Sim Tee Meng and Seah Beng Hoon for misrepresentation related to a New Zealand property investment. The High Court allowed the appeal against Sim Tee Meng, finding him liable for negligent misrepresentation, but dismissed the appeal against Seah Beng Hoon. The court clarified the circumstances under which an agent can be held personally liable for representations made on behalf of their principal.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed in Part

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding liability for misrepresentation. The court found the director liable but not the salesperson, clarifying agent liability.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Sim Tee MengRespondentIndividualAppeal AllowedLost
Haw Wan Sin, DavidAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
Yee Ai Moi, CindyAppellantIndividualAppeal Allowed in PartPartial
Seah Beng HoonRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Akesh AbhilashEversheds Harry Elias LLP
Surenthiraraj s/o SaunthararajahEversheds Harry Elias LLP
Harish Kumar s/o ChampaklalRajah & Tann Singapore LLP
Toh Jun Hian JonathanRajah & Tann Singapore LLP

4. Facts

  1. Appellants invested in a New Zealand residential housing project based on representations made by Faber Property and its agents.
  2. Sim Tee Meng, as KEO of Faber, affirmed representations made by Belle Seah regarding the project's viability and due diligence.
  3. The Developer went into liquidation, and the appellants sought to recover their investment due to alleged misrepresentations.
  4. Faber Property was found to have breached its duty of care by failing to verify key information about the project.
  5. Belle Seah made representations about the project at a marketing event organized by Faber and the Developer.
  6. The appellants met with Jimmy Sim to confirm the representations made by Belle Seah and to seek assurance that due diligence checks had been performed.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Haw Wan Sin David and another v Sim Tee Meng and another, District Court Appeal No 16 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 272

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Belle Seah met with Christoper Cook, a director of the Developer.
Faber entered into an agreement with the Developer and Hunter Sterling & Company Pte Ltd to market the Project.
Advertisements were placed in local newspapers regarding the FRR investment in the Project.
Marketing event held at The St Regis Hotel regarding the FRR investment in the Project.
Appellants attended at the office of Faber, and entered into various agreements in relation to three units in the Project.
Appellants made a payment of S$15,000 by way of a cheque made out to “Hunter Sterling & Company Pte Ltd”.
Appellants made a payment of US$142,656.76 by way of a cheque made out to “Hunter Sterling & Company Client Account (Albany Heights Villas Ltd)”.
District Court Suit No 3237 of 2015 filed.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found Sim Tee Meng liable for negligent misrepresentation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
      • [1998] 1 WLR 830
  2. Agent's Liability for Representations
    • Outcome: The court clarified the circumstances under which an agent can be held personally liable for representations made on behalf of their principal.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2011] 2 SLR 146
      • [2003] 1 AC 959
  3. Duty of Care
    • Outcome: The court found that Sim Tee Meng owed a personal duty of care to the appellants, but Belle Seah did not breach her duty of care.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligent Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Duty of Care

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Haw Wan Sin David and Yee Ai Moi Cindy v Faber Property Pte Ltd and Sim Tee Meng and anotherDistrict CourtYes[2018] SGDC 143SingaporeThe judgment being appealed from. Sets out the District Judge's findings and decision.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100SingaporeCited for the applicable test for determining whether a duty of care exists.
Sandz Solutions (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others v Strategic Worldwide Assets Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2014] 3 SLR 562SingaporeCited for the principles applicable to an appellate court's intervention in factual matters.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 655SingaporeCited for the principles applicable to an appellate court's intervention in factual matters.
Teo Ai Choo v Leong Sze HianCourt of AppealYes[1986] SGCA 4SingaporeCited for the role of an appellate court when there are two directly contradictory versions of events.
GBR v Public Prosecutor and another appealHigh CourtYes[2018] 3 SLR 1048SingaporeCited for the standards of 'plainly wrong' or 'against the weight of the evidence' as the applicable standards for appellate review.
Animal Concerns Research & Education Society v Tan Boon KweeCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 146SingaporeCited for the principle that a director is personally liable for his own torts committed in relation to the company’s affairs.
Standard Chartered Bank v Pakistan National Shipping Corpn and others (Nos 2 and 4)House of LordsYes[2003] 1 AC 959United KingdomCited for the principle that a director is personally liable for his own torts committed in relation to the company’s affairs.
Williams and another v Natural Life Health Foods LtdHouse of LordsYes[1998] 1 WLR 830United KingdomCited for the principle that a director can be personally liable for negligent misstatement if he assumed personal responsibility.
Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties)High CourtYes[2014] SGHC 159SingaporeCited as an analogous situation where property agents owe a duty of care towards purchasers.
Max-Sun Trading Ltd and another v Tang Mun Kit and another (Tan Siew Moi, third party)High CourtYes[2016] 5 SLR 815SingaporeCited for the principle that parties can exclude a tortious duty of care by the way they structure their commercial relationship.
Fairline Shipping Corporation v. AdamsonQueen's Bench DivisionYes[1975] Q.B. 180United KingdomCited as an example of a case where a director was held personally liable for negligent storage of perishable goods.
Yuen Chow Hin and another v ERA Realty Network Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] 2 SLR(R) 786SingaporeCited for the analysis of an 'independent contractor' in the context of real estate agents.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Arbitration Act 1996New Zealand

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Misrepresentation
  • Negligence
  • Duty of Care
  • Agent Liability
  • First Right of Refusal
  • Due Diligence
  • Key Executive Officer
  • Property Investment

15.2 Keywords

  • Misrepresentation
  • Negligence
  • Agent Liability
  • Property Investment
  • Singapore High Court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misrepresentation80
Negligent misrepresentation80
Torts75
Negligence70
Breach of Duty of Care65
Breach of Duty60
Agency Law50
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Agency Law
  • Real Estate Law
  • Civil Litigation