Tan Li Yin Michel v Avril Rengasamy: Oral Contract Dispute over Foreign Currency Trading Losses
In Tan Li Yin Michel v Avril Rengasamy, before the High Court of Singapore on 20 December 2018, the appellant, Michel Tan Li Yin, appealed against the District Court's decision regarding an alleged oral agreement with the respondent, Avril Rengasamy, concerning foreign currency trading. Tan claimed Rengasamy guaranteed her capital against losses, which Rengasamy denied. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding that Tan failed to prove the existence of a capital guarantee. The court did not find the agreement void for illegality.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dispute over an alleged oral agreement where Rengasamy purportedly guaranteed Tan's capital in foreign currency trading. The court dismissed Tan's appeal, finding no capital guarantee.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michel Tan Li Yin (Chen Liyun) | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Avril Rengasamy | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Alvin Lim Xian Yong, Vincent Ho Wei Jie |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Alvin Lim Xian Yong | WongPartnership LLP |
| Vincent Ho Wei Jie | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- Appellant and respondent were close friends.
- Appellant transferred S$210,000 to respondent for margin trading in foreign currencies.
- Appellant claimed respondent orally guaranteed the capital against losses.
- Respondent denied giving any capital guarantee.
- The entire amount transferred by the appellant was lost in margin trading.
- Appellant lied to her father about placing S$100,000 in a fixed deposit account.
- Appellant lied to the respondent about the source of the initial S$100,000.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Li Yin Michel v Avril Rengasamy, District Court Appeal No 3 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 274
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant and respondent met in their professional capacities. | |
| Appellant transferred S$50,000 to the respondent for a fixed deposit account. | |
| Appellant lent the respondent S$15,000. | |
| Appellant and respondent exchanged messages on WhatsApp late at night. | |
| Appellant and respondent had a telephone conversation regarding foreign currency exchange market. | |
| Appellant transferred a total of S$210,000 to the respondent for margin trading. | |
| Positions taken by the respondent were all closed out. | |
| Parties fell out after the appellant demanded repayment. | |
| Appellant commenced action against the respondent. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that there was no capital guarantee, therefore no breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Illegality
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant's claim was not barred by illegality.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Recovery of S$210,000
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 407 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has to consider the relevant documentary evidence and contemporaneous conduct of the parties at the material time in ascertaining the existence of an oral agreement. |
| OCBC Capital Investment Asia Ltd v Wong Hua Choon | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 1206 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court should look to the relevant documentary evidence first as they would be more reliable than a witness’ oral testimony. |
| Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 332 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where there is little or no documentary evidence, the court will examine closely the precise factual matrix. |
| Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 363 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the first stage of the inquiry involves a determination of whether the contract was prohibited pursuant to an established head of common law policy. |
| Ting Siew May v Boon Lay Choo and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 609 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that illegality at common law includes contracts which are not unlawful per se but entered into with the object of committing an illegal act. |
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
- Oral agreement
- Capital guarantee
- Margin trading
- Foreign currency exchange
- WhatsApp messages
- Illegality
- Fraudulent misrepresentation
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- oral agreement
- capital guarantee
- foreign currency
- trading
- losses
- singapore
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Financial Services
- Foreign Exchange Trading
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Contractual Terms
- Interpretation
- Illegality and Public Policy
- Common Law