IPP Financial Advisers v Saimee: Negligent Misrepresentation, Limitation & Vicarious Liability

The Singapore Court of Appeal heard appeals by IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd, Moi Kok Keong, and Quek Miaw Sian Alice against Saimee bin Jumaat's claim of negligent misrepresentation regarding investment advice. Saimee claimed Moi and Quek misrepresented the risks of investing in SMLG Inc. The court found that Saimee's claim was time-barred, as the cause of action accrued when the first repayment was missed, and the writ of summons was filed after the limitation period. The appeals were allowed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeals allowed. Saimee's claims against the appellants are time-barred.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal addresses accrual of action for negligent misrepresentation and vicarious liability in investment advice case. Claims time-barred.

1.7 Decision Date

12 May 2020

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Manoj Belani of Drew & Napier LLC Lee Soong Yan, Kevin of Drew & Napier LLC Yim Wing Kuen Jimmy of Drew & Napier LLC Ang Si Yi of Drew & Napier LLC
Saimee bin Jumaat	Respondent	Individual	Claims Dismissed	Lost	Uthayasurian Sidambaram of Surian & Partners Vishnu Aditya Naidu of Phoenix Law Corporation
Moi Kok Keong	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Navin Kangatharan of Josephine Chong LLC Lee Ming Hui Kelvin of WNLEX LLC Ong Xin Ying Samantha of WNLEX LLC Josephine Chong of Josephine Chong LLC Tan Teck Hian Wilson of WNLEX LLC
Quek Miaw Sian Alice	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Allowed	Won	Navin Kangatharan of Josephine Chong LLC Lee Ming Hui Kelvin of WNLEX LLC Ong Xin Ying Samantha of WNLEX LLC Josephine Chong of Josephine Chong LLC Tan Teck Hian Wilson of WNLEX LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Steven Chong	Judge of Appeal	Yes
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Judge	No
Woo Bih Li	Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Manoj Belani	Drew & Napier LLC
Lee Soong Yan, Kevin	Drew & Napier LLC
Yim Wing Kuen Jimmy	Drew & Napier LLC
Ang Si Yi	Drew & Napier LLC
Uthayasurian Sidambaram	Surian & Partners
Vishnu Aditya Naidu	Phoenix Law Corporation
Navin Kangatharan	Josephine Chong LLC
Lee Ming Hui Kelvin	WNLEX LLC
Ong Xin Ying Samantha	WNLEX LLC
Josephine Chong	Josephine Chong LLC
Tan Teck Hian Wilson	WNLEX LLC

4. Facts

Saimee invested in a foreign exchange market through SMLG on the advice of Moi and Quek.
Moi and Quek represented that the investment was safe and would yield a 40% profit within a year.
Saimee transferred US$620,900 in three tranches between April 2011 and February 2012.
Moi and Quek also invested in SMLG prior to recommending it to Saimee.
SMLG was unable to pay Saimee due to a "technical glitch."
Saimee loaned US$200,000 to SMLG, guaranteed by Moi, which was also not repaid on time.
Saimee entered into settlement agreements with SMLG, which were not honored.

5. Formal Citations

IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd v Saimee bin Jumaat and another appeal, , [2020] SGCA 47
Saimee bin Jumaat v IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd and others, , [2019] SGHC 159

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2004-01-01	Saimee consulted Candice Lee from Prudential Insurance Company to purchase insurance cover.
2005-01-01	Lee became a financial advisor on behalf of IPP.
2009-01-01	Moi and Quek took over Saimee's portfolio with IPP from Lee.
2011-01-01	Moi and Quek suggested Saimee invest in the foreign exchange market.
2011-04-11	Moi introduced Seeni to Saimee.
2011-04-01	Saimee opened a trading account with FX Primus Ltd.
2011-04-27	Saimee transferred US$80,300 into a bank account held by FX Primus.
2011-06-17	Saimee transferred US$240,300 into a bank account held by FX Primus.
2012-02-03	Saimee transferred US$300,300 into a bank account held by FX Primus.
2012-04-01	Moi knew about the technical glitch.
2012-05-01	Moi and Quek told Saimee that SMLG was unable to pay due to a technical glitch.
2012-05-17	Saimee signed a Term Loan Guarantee with Moi.
2012-06-24	The US$200,000 loan was not repaid.
2012-09-17	Saimee entered into three separate settlement agreements with SMLG.
2012-09-21	No sums were repaid to Saimee under the Settlement Agreements.
2012-10-16	S$50,000 was paid to Saimee.
2013-12-02	Moi informed Saimee that the SMLG Investment was not offered by IPP.
2013-10-16	S$240,000 was paid to Saimee.
2014-08-01	Saimee's legal advisors issued a letter of demand to all three appellants.
2014-09-03	Reply from the appellants' solicitors.
2018-07-21	Saimee filed a writ of summons.
2019-01-01	The Judge issued a written judgment – Saimee bin Jumaat v IPP Financial Advisers Pte Ltd and others [2019] SGHC 159.
2020-03-06	Court hearing.
2020-05-13	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Accrual of cause of action for negligent misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court held that the cause of action accrued when the first repayment was missed, not when the investment was made or the settlement agreement was defaulted on.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Determination of when damage occurs
  - Distinction between contingent liability and actual damage
Limitation Defence
- Outcome: The court held that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to prove that its claim fell within the limitation period.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Burden of proof in limitation defence
  - Pleading of limitation defence
Vicarious Liability
- Outcome: The court did not make a final determination on vicarious liability due to the finding on the limitation period.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Negligent Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Financial Services Litigation

11. Industries

Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lian Kok Hong v Ow Wah Foong and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 165	Singapore	Cited to establish that s 6(1)(a) and s 24A of the Limitation Act do not apply concurrently; instead s 24A applies to all claims in tort.
Yan Jun v Attorney-General	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2015] 1 SLR 752	Singapore	Cited to establish that s 6(1)(a) and s 24A of the Limitation Act do not apply concurrently; instead s 24A applies to all claims in tort.
London Congregational Union Inc v Harriss & Harriss (a firm)	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1988] 1 All ER 15	England	Cited for the principle that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the action is not time-barred.
Cartledge and others v E Jopling & Sons Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1962] 1 QB 189	England	Cited for the principle that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the action is not time-barred.
Cartledge v E Jopling & Sons Limited	House of Lords	Yes	[1963] AC 758	England	Cited for the principle that the burden of proof is on the plaintiff to show that the action is not time-barred.
Maharaj and another v Johnson and others	Privy Council	Yes	[2015] UKPC 28	United Kingdom	Discusses the categorisation of cases into “no transaction” and “flawed transaction” cases to decide the issue of when loss occurs.
Forster v Outred & Co	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1982] 1 WLR 86	England	Discussed in relation to when damage occurs in cases of negligent advice leading to a mortgage.
D W Moore & Co Ltd and others v Ferrier and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1988] 1 All ER 400	England	Followed Forster in the context of a negligent preparation of an agreement containing a limited restrictive covenant against competition.
Bell v Peter Browne & Co	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 3 WLR 510	England	Followed Forster and Moore in the context of a negligent omission instead of negligent advice.
Knapp and another v Ecclesiastical Insurance Group plc and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] All ER (D) 44	England	Held that the plaintiffs had suffered actual damage at the time of renewal of the insurance policy, and the claim was therefore time-barred.
Wardley Australia Ltd and another v State of Western Australia	High Court of Australia	Yes	(1992) 109 ALR 247	Australia	Discussed the issue of when economic loss is sustained and the time when it is first sustained depend upon the nature of the interest infringed and, perhaps, the nature of the interference to which it is subjected.
UBAF Ltd v European American Banking Corporation	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1984] 2 All ER 226	England	Held that a trial would be necessary to determine when the damage was suffered.
First National Commercial Bank plc v Humberts (a firm)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 2 All ER 673	England	Held that the plaintiffs did not suffer any damage when they entered into the loan transaction.
Nykredit Mortgage Bank plc v Edward Erdman Group Ltd (No 2)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 1 All ER 305	England	Discussed the approach to calculating when the cause of action accrued, the loss in such a case would be the loan less any recovery there might be.
Law Society v Sephton & Co (a firm) and others	House of Lords	Yes	[2006] UKHL 22	United Kingdom	Held that a contingent liability is not as such damage until the contingency occurs.
Shore v Sedgwick Financial Services Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] EWCA Civ 863	England	Held that the plaintiff suffered damage as soon as he switched to the PFW scheme from the Avesta scheme, because it was riskier, and this was less advantageous from the plaintiff’s perspective because he wanted a secure scheme.
Pegasus Management Holdings SCA v Ernst and Young	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] EWCA Civ 181	England	Categorisation of cases into “no transaction” and “flawed transaction” cases to decide the issue of when loss occurs.
Axa Insurance Ltd v Akther & Darby Solicitors	Court of Appeal	Yes	(2009) 127 ConLR 50	England	Categorisation of cases into “no transaction” and “flawed transaction” cases to decide the issue of when loss occurs.
Wiltopps (Asia) Ltd v Emmanuel & Barker	High Court	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR(R) 778	Singapore	Cited for the test to determine whether a cause of action in tort has accrued is to ask whether a plaintiff would have succeeded if he had sued at any time after the occurrence of the negligent act complained of.
Hopkins v Mackenzie	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1994] TLR 546	N/A	Cited for the principle that what has to be shown is actual loss or damage, not future loss or damage, however likely it was that that would occur.
Liew Soon Fook Michael and another v Yi Kai Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2017] SGHC 88	Singapore	Held that the claim was time-barred because the damage occurred when the plaintiffs entered into the sale and purchase agreement.
Green v Eadie and others	English High Court	Yes	[2012] 2 WLR 510	England	Held that the damage occurred upon entering into the “flawed transaction”.
Koh Kim Teck and another v Credit Suisse AG, Singapore Branch	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 82	Singapore	Observed, albeit obiter, that the limitation period for the plaintiff’s claims started to run from the time that the plaintiff purchased each financial product, and not when the risks materialised.
Khan v RM Falvey & Co	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] All ER (D) 361 (Mar)	England	The English Court of Appeal also held in Khan at [23] that “[a] claimant cannot defeat the statute of limitations by claiming only in respect of damage which occurs within the limitation period, if he has suffered actual damage from the same wrongful acts outside that period”
Polley v Warner Goodman & Streat (a firm)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] EWCA Civ 1013	England	The English Court of Appeal also held in Khan at [23] that “[a] claimant cannot defeat the statute of limitations by claiming only in respect of damage which occurs within the limitation period, if he has suffered actual damage from the same wrongful acts outside that period”

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Limitation Act, s 6(1)(a)	Singapore
Limitation Act, s 24A(1)	Singapore
Limitation Act, s 24A(3)	Singapore
Limitation Act, s 24A(4)(d)	Singapore
Limitation Act, s 4	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Negligent Misrepresentation
Limitation Period
Accrual of Cause of Action
Vicarious Liability
SMLG Investment
Settlement Agreement
Contingent Loss
Financial Advisor
Investment Risk
Algorithm Trading System

15.2 Keywords

negligent misrepresentation
limitation
vicarious liability
financial advisors
investment
SMLG
Singapore
court of appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Limitation	90
Misrepresentation	85
Torts	80
Civil Practice	75
Negligence	70
Vicarious liability	65
Contract Law	40
Agency Law	30
Banking and Finance	25

16. Subjects

Tort Law
Contract Law
Civil Procedure
Financial Law
Investment Law