Saimee Bin Jumaat v IPP Financial Advisers: Negligence, Misrepresentation, and Vicarious Liability in Investment Advice
In Saimee Bin Jumaat v IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd, Moi Kok Keong, and Quek Miaw Sian Alice, the High Court of Singapore ruled in favor of the plaintiff, Saimee Bin Jumaat, against the defendants, IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd, Moi Kok Keong, and Quek Miaw Sian Alice, for a claim of negligent misrepresentation and vicarious liability. The case concerned an investment into foreign exchange based on an algorithm trading service offered by SMLG Inc. The court found Moi and Quek liable for negligent misrepresentation and IPP vicariously liable for their actions, awarding Saimee USD$620,900 plus interest.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Saimee Bin Jumaat sues IPP Financial Advisers for negligent misrepresentation regarding an investment. The court found IPP vicariously liable for its advisors' negligence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Saimee Bin Jumaat | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Uthayasurian Sidambaram, Vishnu Aditya Naidu |
| IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Vicariously Liable | Lost | Chan Wai Kit Darren Dominic, Ng Yi Ming Daniel |
| Moi Kok Keong | Defendant | Individual | Liable for Negligence | Lost | Tan Teck Hian Wilson, Kelvin Lee, Samantha Ong Xin Ying |
| Quek Miaw Sian Alice | Defendant | Individual | Liable for Negligence | Lost | Tan Teck Hian Wilson, Kelvin Lee, Samantha Ong Xin Ying |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Uthayasurian Sidambaram | Phoenix Law Corporation |
| Vishnu Aditya Naidu | Phoenix Law Corporation |
| Chan Wai Kit Darren Dominic | Characterist LLC |
| Ng Yi Ming Daniel | Characterist LLC |
| Tan Teck Hian Wilson | WNLEX LLC |
| Kelvin Lee | WNLEX LLC |
| Samantha Ong Xin Ying | WNLEX LLC |
4. Facts
- Saimee, a former jockey, sought financial advice from IPP through Moi and Quek.
- Moi and Quek advised Saimee to invest USD$620,900 in SMLG’s algorithm trading service.
- Moi and Quek represented the SMLG investment as capital guaranteed with 40% annual returns.
- Saimee deposited USD$620,900 into a Barclays bank account in Mauritius, held by FX Primus.
- Moi and Quek advised Saimee to loan USD$200,000 to SMLG due to a technical glitch.
- Moi executed a guarantee in favor of Saimee for the return of the USD$200,000 loan.
- Moi and Quek advised Saimee to enter into settlement agreements with SMLG.
- Saimee did not receive the settlement sum from SMLG.
5. Formal Citations
- Saimee bin Jumaat v IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd and others, HC/Suit No 735 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 159
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Saimee consulted Prudential Insurance Company for insurance cover. | |
| Candice Lee joined IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd. | |
| Moi Kok Keong and Quek Miaw Sian Alice took over Saimee’s portfolio with IPP. | |
| Moi and Quek advised Saimee to invest in SMLG’s algorithm trading service. | |
| Saimee deposited USD$80,300 into FX Primus account. | |
| Saimee deposited USD$240,300 into FX Primus account. | |
| Saimee deposited USD$300,300 into FX Primus account. | |
| Moi introduced Seeni to Saimee. | |
| Saimee gave SMLG a USD$200,000 loan. | |
| SMLG failed to repay the USD$200,000 loan. | |
| Moi and Quek advised Saimee to enter into settlement agreements with SMLG. | |
| SMLG failed to pay Saimee the settlement sum. | |
| SMLG repaid SGD$50,000 of the USD$200,000 loan. | |
| SMLG repaid SGD$240,000 of the USD$200,000 loan. | |
| Saimee filed a writ of summons. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that Moi and Quek made negligent misrepresentations to Saimee regarding the SMLG Investment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False representation of fact
- Breach of duty of care
- Reliance on misrepresentation
- Causation of damage
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
- [1963] 3 W.L.R. 101
- [2011] 4 SLR 559
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 909
- Vicarious Liability
- Outcome: The court found IPP vicariously liable for the negligent misrepresentations of Moi and Quek.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Relationship capable of giving rise to vicarious liability
- Close connection test
- Enterprise risk
- Related Cases:
- [2018] 5 SLR 549
- [2011] 3 SLR 540
- [2003] 2 AC 366
- Limitation of Actions
- Outcome: The court found that Saimee’s claim was not time-barred.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Accrual of cause of action
- Continuing duty of care
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 165
- [1998] 2 SLR(R) 778
- [2007] 1 SLR(R) 853
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Breach of Duty of Care
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Financial Services Litigation
11. Industries
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of reasonable foreseeability in determining duty of care for economic loss. |
| Hedley Bryne & Co. Ltd v Heller & Partners Ltd. | N/A | Yes | [1963] 3 W.L.R. 101 | N/A | Cited for the principle of voluntary assumption of responsibility and reliance in establishing a duty of care for financial loss. |
| Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG | High Court | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 559 | Singapore | Cited regarding the duty to inform investors about the potential risks involved with investments. |
| Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 909 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that damages for negligent misrepresentation aim to place the victim in the position they would have been had the misrepresentation not occurred. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to establish fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Lian Kok Hong v Ow Wah Foong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 165 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a cause of action in tort accrues when the damage occurs. |
| Wiltopps (Asia) Ltd v Emmanuel & Barker | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 778 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the loss must be an actual, not a potential or prospective loss, for a cause of action in tort to accrue. |
| Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric (practising under the name and style of W P Architects) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 853 | Singapore | Cited for the assessment of the factual matrix to determine the nature of the obligation owed and the time of its breach. |
| Ong Han Ling and another v American International Assurance Co Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 549 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to establish vicarious liability. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 540 | Singapore | Cited for the requirements to establish vicarious liability and the close connection test. |
| Ng Huat Seng v Munib Mohammed Madni and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1074 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of independent contractors. |
| Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam | House of Lords | Yes | [2003] 2 AC 366 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that businesses should be responsible for compensating those harmed by the wrongful acts of their agents. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- SMLG Investment
- Algorithm Trading Service
- Financial Advisers
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Vicarious Liability
- Settlement Agreements
- Duty of Care
- Capital Guaranteed
- Financial Portfolio
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- misrepresentation
- vicarious liability
- financial advisor
- investment
- singapore
- tort
16. Subjects
- Tort Law
- Financial Law
- Agency Law
- Investment Law
17. Areas of Law
- Tort
- Negligence
- Misrepresentation
- Vicarious Liability
- Limitation of Actions
- Financial Advisory Law