Hoo Su Hen v Sim Mao Sheng Desmond: Striking Out Pleadings in Negligence and Misrepresentation Claim

Hoo Su Hen sued Sim Mao Sheng Desmond and Infinity Treasures Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, alleging negligence and misrepresentation regarding investment advice. Sim Mao Sheng Desmond applied to strike out the claim, arguing no reasonable cause of action was disclosed. Choo Han Teck J dismissed the appeal, holding that a cause of action was palpable on the face of the pleadings, and the plaintiff was entitled to have his claim heard.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiff sued for negligence and misrepresentation related to investment advice. The court dismissed the defendant's application to strike out the claim, emphasizing that a cause of action was disclosed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Hoo Su Hen @ Ho Su HenPlaintiffIndividualClaim not struck outNeutral
Sim Mao Sheng DesmondDefendant, AppellantIndividualAppeal dismissedLost
Infinity Treasures Pte LtdDefendantCorporationNo representationNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ong Kai Min KelvinTito Isaac & Co LLP
Jaspreet KaurTito Isaac & Co LLP
Choo Zheng XiPeter Low & Choo LLC
Chia Wen Qi, PriscillaPeter Low & Choo LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff claimed the first defendant misled him to invest in crude oil and residential housing.
  2. The first defendant allegedly represented a 12% return in profit for crude oil and 15% for residential housing.
  3. The plaintiff's claim against the second defendant is based on vicarious liability.
  4. The first defendant was an employee of the second defendant.
  5. The plaintiff invested in the two investments and lost money.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Hoo Su Hen v Sim Mao Sheng Desmond and another, Suit No 193 of 2019, [2019] SGHC 189

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff’s wife was admitted to Mount Elizabeth Hospital for haemorrhagic stroke
Hearing date
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether the statement of claim discloses a reasonable cause of action in negligence and misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court held that the statement of claim did disclose a cause of action, and the plaintiff was entitled to have his claim heard.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Inadequate pleading of facts to support a claim in negligence
      • Failure to plead that the first defendant was a financial advisor

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligence
  • Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Litigation

11. Industries

  • Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Order 18 rule 19(1)(a) of the Rules of CourtSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Striking out
  • Pleadings
  • Reasonable cause of action
  • Misrepresentation
  • Negligence
  • Vicarious liability
  • Statement of claim

15.2 Keywords

  • Striking out
  • Negligence
  • Misrepresentation
  • Investment
  • Singapore
  • Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Striking out90
Pleadings80
Civil Practice75
Misrepresentation70
Civil Procedure65
Negligence60
Vicarious liability40
Contract Law30

16. Subjects

  • Civil Procedure
  • Investment Law
  • Tort Law