Lavrentiadis v Dextra Partners: Breach of Trust, Fiduciary Duty, and Accessory Liability

In Lavrentiadis v Dextra Partners Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed claims of breach of trust and fiduciary duty against Dextra Partners, a foreign law practice, and its manager, Bernhard Weber. The plaintiff, Lavrentios Lavrentiadis, alleged unauthorized transactions and mismanagement of his funds held by Dextra. The court found that Dextra and Weber breached their duties, including unauthorized investments and conflicts of interest. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, ordering Dextra and Weber to account for and repay the misappropriated funds.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving breach of trust and fiduciary duty claims against Dextra Partners and its manager, Weber, regarding unauthorized transactions.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lavrentios LavrentiadisPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWonSim Bock Eng, Tan Kia Hua, Lee Yu Lun Darrell, Celeste Tan Yin
Dextra Partners Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against DefendantLostPhilip Fong Yeng Fatt, Kevin Koh Zhi Rong, Koh Xian Wei Jeffrey
Bernhard Wilhelm Rudolf WeberDefendantIndividualJudgment against DefendantLostPhilip Fong Yeng Fatt, Kevin Koh Zhi Rong, Koh Xian Wei Jeffrey

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chua Lee MingJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sim Bock EngWongPartnership LLP
Tan Kia HuaWongPartnership LLP
Lee Yu Lun DarrellWongPartnership LLP
Celeste Tan YinWongPartnership LLP
Philip Fong Yeng FattEversheds Harry Elias LLP
Kevin Koh Zhi RongEversheds Harry Elias LLP
Koh Xian Wei JeffreyEversheds Harry Elias LLP

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff entrusted funds to Dextra Partners, managed by Weber.
  2. Dextra Partners held plaintiff's monies in its clients' account.
  3. Disputes arose over authorized transactions and Weber's personal liability.
  4. Dextra claimed certain transactions were authorized under a General Advisory Mandate.
  5. Plaintiff denied signing the mandate and disputed the authorization of transactions.
  6. Dextra made loans to Far West, where Weber was a director and shareholder.
  7. Dextra used plaintiff's funds for loans to entities where Weber had personal interests.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lavrentiadis, Lavrentios v Dextra Partners Pte Ltd and another, Suit No 106 of 2018, [2020] SGHC 146

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Weber set up ILC Singapore
Plaintiff wanted to set up a trust in Singapore and he was referred to Weber
The Calmness Trust was set up pursuant to a Deed of Settlement
ILC Singapore retired as trustee and appointed WinTrust as the trustee of the Calmness Trust
ILC Singapore and WinTrust entered into a Deed of Variation to the 2005 Deed of Settlement
Proton Bank in Greece was nationalised
Funds were transferred to ILC Singapore's clients' account
Funds were transferred to ILC Singapore's clients' account
Weber met the plaintiff in Athens
Ritter and Weber met the plaintiff in Athens
The plaintiff was arrested and remanded in custody
Defendants claim Investment Swap took place
Ressos met the plaintiff's Greek lawyer in Munich
The plaintiff was released from remand
Athanasiou requested an update on the funds held by Dextra
Weber sent a statement of the plaintiff's EUR account to the plaintiff
The plaintiff and Athanasiou met Ressos in Athens
Athanasiou met Weber in Singapore
Athanasiou provided the proof of his authority to act for the plaintiff
Weber sent Athanasiou a third statement of the plaintiff’s EUR account with Dextra
The plaintiff commenced this action

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Trust
    • Outcome: The court found that Dextra Partners breached its duties as a trustee by engaging in unauthorized transactions and mismanaging the plaintiff's funds.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unauthorized Investments
      • Misapplication of Funds
  2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court found that Weber, as the manager of Dextra Partners, owed and breached his fiduciary duties to the plaintiff.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Conflict of Interest
      • Failure to Act in Best Interest
  3. Accessory Liability
    • Outcome: The court found Weber liable for dishonestly assisting Dextra in its breaches of trust.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Dishonest Assistance

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Account of Monies
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Trust
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Dishonest Assistance

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Trust Litigation

11. Industries

  • Legal Services
  • Financial Services

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Foo Jee Seng and others v Foo Jhee Tuang and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2012] 4 SLR 339SingaporeCited for the principle that trustees are under a duty to keep account of the trusts and to allow the beneficiaries to inspect them as requested.
Pearse v GreenN/AYes(1819) 1 Jac & W 135; 37 ER 327N/ACited to support the principle that a trustee has to be constantly ready with his accounts.
Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and othersN/AYes[2019] 4 SLR 714SingaporeCited for the key differences between an account on a wilful default basis and an account on a common account basis pertain to the scope of the account and the trustee’s liability.
Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appealN/AYes[2015] 2 SLR 686SingaporeCited for the principle that the burden is on the person seeking to rely on s 32(1)(j) to prove the ground of unavailability and a mere allegation of unavailability is not acceptable.
Tan Yok Koon v Tan Choo Suan and another and other appealsN/AYes[2017] 1 SLR 654SingaporeCited for the principle that a party may come under personal fiduciary duties to his principal where he voluntarily places himself in a position where the law can objectively impute an intention on his part to undertake obligations of a fiduciary nature.
Law Society of Singapore v Wan Hui Hong JamesN/AYes[2013] 3 SLR 221SingaporeCited for the principle that the solicitor-client relationship is of such a nature as to warrant the imposition of fiduciary obligations on the solicitor.
Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another and another appealN/AYes[2013] 4 SLR 308SingaporeCited for the principle that a company will be found to be the alter ego of its controller if the company is carrying on the business of its controller.
George Raymond Zage III and another v Ho Chi Kwong and anotherN/AYes[2010] 2 SLR 589SingaporeCited for the elements of a claim in dishonest assistance.
M+W Singapore Pte Ltd v Leow Tet Sin and anotherN/AYes[2015] 2 SLR 271SingaporeCited for the analysis involved in determining dishonesty.
Re GrimthorpeN/AYes[1958] Ch 615N/ACited for the proposition that trustees are entitled to be indemnified against the costs and expenses which they incur in the course of their office.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)Singapore
Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Serious Crimes (Confiscation of Benefits) Act (Cap 65A, 2000 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Breach of Trust
  • Alter Ego
  • Dishonest Assistance
  • Investment Swap
  • Asset Protection Structures

15.2 Keywords

  • Breach of Trust
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Singapore High Court
  • Unauthorized Transactions
  • Investment Management

16. Subjects

  • Trust Law
  • Fiduciary Law
  • Commercial Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Equity
  • Fiduciary relationships
  • Trusts
  • Breach of trust
  • Accessory liability