Liu Yanzhe v Tan Eu Jin: Fraudulent Misrepresentation in Autostyle Investment
Plaintiffs Liu Yanzhe and Ma Yanzhi sued Tan Eu Jin, Ng Wee Liam, JE Capital Pte Ltd, and Lim Hung Kok in the High Court of Singapore, alleging fraud concerning a $1 million 'Autostyle investment'. The plaintiffs claimed fraudulent misrepresentation by all four defendants, seeking damages of $896,260 plus interest and costs. The court, presided over by Justice Vinodh Coomaraswamy, dismissed the plaintiffs' claim against the fourth defendant, Lim Hung Kok. The plaintiffs have appealed against that decision. Judgment was delivered on March 21, 2019.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs' claim against the fourth defendant, Lim Hung Kok, is dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiffs Liu Yanzhe and Ma Yanzhi claim fraud against Tan Eu Jin, Ng Wee Liam, JE Capital Pte Ltd, and Lim Hung Kok for a $1m Autostyle investment loss. Court dismisses claim against Lim Hung Kok.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Liu Yanzhe | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ma Yanzhi | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Eu Jin | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | |
| Ng Wee Liam | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Default | |
| JE Capital Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment against Defendant | Default | |
| Lim Hung Kok | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs invested $1m with the third defendant in the Autostyle investment.
- Plaintiffs were to be repaid $1m in March 2015 with 15% interest per annum.
- Plaintiffs received interest payments but the $1m capital was not repaid.
- Plaintiffs were repaid $103,740 out of their $1m investment in May 2015.
- Plaintiffs suffered a net loss of $896,260.
- Plaintiffs claim fraud against all four defendants to recover damages of $896,260.
- The fourth defendant was a private banker and senior relationship manager with Credit Suisse.
5. Formal Citations
- Liu Yanzhe and another v Tan Eu Jin and others, Suit 969 of 2015, [2019] SGHC 67
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs invested $1m with the third defendant. | |
| Repayment of $1m due to the plaintiffs. | |
| Plaintiffs repaid $103,740 out of their $1m investment. | |
| Third defendant served in October 2015. | |
| Plaintiffs effected substituted service of the writ on the second defendant. | |
| Plaintiffs entered judgment against the second defendant in default of appearance. | |
| Third defendant ordered to be compulsorily wound up. | |
| Third defendant ceased to defend this action from April 2016. | |
| Plaintiffs applied for leave under s 262(3) of the Companies Act to continue this action against the third defendant. | |
| First defendant defended this action through solicitors up to December 2016. | |
| Second defendant was adjudicated bankrupt. | |
| Trial began. | |
| First defendant was adjudicated bankrupt. | |
| Plaintiffs obtained leave under s 76(1)(c)(ii) of the Bankruptcy Act to continue this action against the first defendant. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim against the fourth defendant, finding no fraudulent misrepresentation.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
- (1889) 14 App Cas 337
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages in the sum of $896,260
- Interest
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraud
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Deceit
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Finance
- Construction
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the five essential elements to establish fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Derry v Peek | House of Lords | Yes | (1889) 14 App Cas 337 | United Kingdom | Cited for the definition of fraud in the tort of deceit. |
| Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 909 | Singapore | Cited to endorse Lord Herschell’s approach in Panatron. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited to endorse Lord Herschell’s approach in Panatron. |
| Angus v Clifford | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1891] 2 Ch 449 | United Kingdom | Cited to affirm that recklessness does not mean not taking care, it means indifference to the truth. |
| Chu Said Thong and another v Vision Law LLC | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 375 | Singapore | Cited to support that dishonesty is an essential aspect of fraud. |
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another and another appeal | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the burden of proof in establishing fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| In re H and others (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) | N/A | Yes | [1996] AC 563 | United Kingdom | Cited for the standard of proof required for serious allegations. |
| Bank Leumi le Israel BM v British National Insurance Co Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [1988] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 71 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a representation as to the future may be actionable if it carries with it a representation that the representor believes that the future event will transpire as he has represented that it will. |
| Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 307 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a statement as to a man’s intention, or as to his own state of mind, is no less a statement of fact and a misstatement of a man’s mind is a misrepresentation of fact. |
| British Airways Board v Taylor | N/A | Yes | [1976] 1 WLR 13 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that a statement of intention may itself be a statement of fact and so capable of being true or false. |
| Edgington v Fitzmaurice | N/A | Yes | (1885) 29 Ch D 459 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a statement as to a man’s intention, or as to his own state of mind, is no less a statement of fact and a misstatement of a man’s mind is a misrepresentation of fact. |
| Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 1310 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a representation as to the future may be actionable if it carries with it a representation that the representor believes that the future event will transpire as he has represented that it will. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Companies Act (Cap 50, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Bankruptcy Act (Cap 20, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Autostyle investment
- Banker's guarantee
- Fraudulent misrepresentation
- Credit Suisse
- Private banker
- Relationship manager
- JE Capital
- ABN Amro guarantee
- Insolvency proceedings
- Substituted service
- McKenzie friend
15.2 Keywords
- fraud
- misrepresentation
- investment
- banker's guarantee
- Credit Suisse
- Singapore
- High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Fraud and Deceit | 95 |
| Misrepresentation | 90 |
| Breach of Contract | 40 |
| Civil Procedure | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Misrepresentation
- Fraud
- Contract Law
- Banking
- Investment