Ahmad Ebrahim v Ilangchizian Manogaran: Breach of Oral Agreement & Undue Influence
In Ahmad Ebrahim s/o S M E Mohamed Sadik v Ilangchizian Manogaran, the Singapore High Court addressed a dispute arising from an alleged oral investment contract. The Plaintiff, Ahmad Ebrahim, claimed that the Defendant, Ilangchizian Manogaran, breached their agreement by failing to return a US$1 million investment and outstanding guaranteed returns. The Defendant contended that the Plaintiff invested directly in Maxim Trader, a third-party company. Mavis Chionh JC dismissed the Plaintiff's claims, finding that the Plaintiff had contracted directly with Maxim Trader and that the Defendant had merely assisted the Plaintiff with his investment.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
The Plaintiff’s claims were dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore High Court case involving a breach of contract claim and allegations of undue influence related to a US$1 million investment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ahmad Ebrahim s/o S M E Mohamed Sadik | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | S Magintharan, Vineetha Gunasekaran, Tan Yixun Benedict |
| Ilangchizian Manogaran | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Ravinran Kumaran, Subash s/o Rengasamy |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Mavis Chionh | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| S Magintharan | Essex LLC |
| Vineetha Gunasekaran | Essex LLC |
| Tan Yixun Benedict | Essex LLC |
| Ravinran Kumaran | Relianze Law Corporation |
| Subash s/o Rengasamy | Relianze Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff claimed an oral contract with Defendant for an investment scheme with 8% monthly returns.
- Plaintiff made payments to Defendant totaling US$1 million between October 2014 and March 2015.
- Defendant claimed Plaintiff invested directly in Maxim Trader, a third-party company.
- Maxim Trader stopped paying returns in June 2015.
- Plaintiff claimed he was unaware of Maxim Trader until September 2016, later revised to August 2014.
- Defendant claimed Plaintiff knew he was investing in Maxim Trader and Defendant was merely assisting him.
- Plaintiff's daughters confronted Defendant in September 2016 regarding the investment.
5. Formal Citations
- Ahmad Ebrahim s/o S M E Mohamed Sadik v Ilangchizian Manogaran, Suit No 268 of 2018, [2019] SGHC 167
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant began providing bookkeeping services to Plaintiff (Defendant's version). | |
| Defendant began providing bookkeeping services to Plaintiff (Plaintiff's version). | |
| Defendant first heard about Maxim Trader. | |
| Defendant opened an online investment account with Maxim Trader. | |
| Plaintiff made first payment to Defendant amounting to US$50,000. | |
| Plaintiff invested a further sum of US$100,000. | |
| Plaintiff received US$4,000 return. | |
| Plaintiff received news that second monthly profit of US$12,000 would be paid on 25 December 2014. | |
| Plaintiff invested US$300,000 with Maxim Trader. | |
| Plaintiff invested US$150,000 with Maxim Trader. | |
| Plaintiff received returns of US$12,000. | |
| Plaintiff received investment profit of US$48,000. | |
| Plaintiff received payment of US$48,000 returns. | |
| Plaintiff informed Defendant that he would be investing another US$160,000. | |
| Defendant collected US$160,000 from Plaintiff. | |
| Defendant informed Plaintiff that he would be receiving the next payment of monthly profit on or before 18 March 2015. | |
| Plaintiff received US$48,000 from the Defendant. | |
| Plaintiff handed US$240,000 to the Defendant. | |
| Plaintiff invested sums totalling US$1 million. | |
| Plaintiff received US$60,800 from the Defendant. | |
| Article appeared on "All Singapore Stuff" about Maxim Trader. | |
| Plaintiff discovered that monthly profit of US$80,000 had not been credited. | |
| Plaintiff and Defendant attended meeting with Sammi at PUB Auditorium. | |
| Defendant informed Plaintiff that he had managed to sell off 200,000 of his Maxim Trader shares. | |
| Defendant passed Plaintiff cash of S$52,000 (US$40,000). | |
| Shares would be in the market. | |
| Plaintiff's daughters confronted the Defendant at the Plaintiff's office. | |
| Plaintiff found out from news reports that Maxim Trader was a Ponzi scheme. | |
| Defendant forwarded a text message from Sammi. | |
| Plaintiff sent Defendant Whatsapp messages announcing that he would commence legal action. | |
| Letter of demand issued to the Defendant. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Further arguments heard. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that no oral agreement existed between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Existence of oral agreement
- Implied terms
- Wrongful repudiation
- Undue Influence
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff was not able to make out his claim of undue influence.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Relationship of trust and confidence
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that there were never any misrepresentations made by the Defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Inducement
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found that the alternative claim for restitution of the US$1 million as “money had and received” could not be sustained.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that Defendant breached the oral contract
- Return of US$1 million
- Payment of outstanding guaranteed returns totaling US$1,320,000
- Account and inquiry of secret commissions
- Damages for breach of fiduciary duty and/or breach of trust
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Misrepresentation
- Undue Influence
- Breach of Trust
- Breach of Fiduciary Duty
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| BOM v BOK and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 1 SLR 349 | Singapore | Cited for the categories of undue influence. |
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the basis for a claim for money had and received has been subsumed under the rubric of unjust enrichment. |
| Banque Financière de la Cité v Parc (Battersea Ltd) and others | House of Lords | Yes | [1999] 1 AC 221 | United Kingdom | Cited for the essential ingredients of a claim for restitution of an unjust enrichment. |
| SCT Technologies Pte Ltd v Western Copper Co Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1471 | Singapore | Cited for the common law rule that he who asserts must prove. |
| Loo Chay Sit v Estate of Loo Chay Loo, deceased | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 286 | Singapore | Cited for the common law rule that he who asserts must prove. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Oral agreement
- Investment scheme
- Guaranteed returns
- Maxim Trader
- Undue influence
- Fiduciary duty
- Secret commissions
- Ponzi scheme
- Money had and received
- Investment account
- Monthly profits
- Capital sum
- Share conversion
- Investment contracts
15.2 Keywords
- Breach of contract
- Oral agreement
- Investment
- Undue influence
- Singapore
- High Court
- Maxim Trader
- Ponzi scheme
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Investment Law
- Financial Disputes
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Breach of Contract
- Equity
- Fiduciary Relationships
- Restitution
- Unjust Enrichment
- Misrepresentation
- Undue Influence