Changi Makan v Development 2003: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Conspiracy in Property Sale
Changi Makan Pte Ltd, majority-owned by Mr. Lee Boon Leng, sued Development 2003 Holding Private Limited, Har Yasin Restaurant Pte Ltd, Mohamed Hanifa s/o Abdul Hamid, and Mohamed Haneefa Iqbal in the High Court of Singapore, alleging fraudulent misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy in relation to the purchase of a property. Changi Makan claimed the defendants conspired to inflate the rental yield of the property, leading to an inflated purchase price. Ang Cheng Hock J dismissed the claims, finding no evidence of fraudulent misrepresentation or conspiracy.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Claims dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Changi Makan sued Development 2003 for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy related to the purchase of a property. The court dismissed the claims.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Changi Makan Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Dismissed | |
| Development 2003 Holding Private Limited | Defendant | Corporation | Claims Dismissed | Won | |
| Har Yasin Restaurant Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claims Dismissed | Won | |
| Mohamed Hanifa s/o Abdul Hamid | Defendant | Individual | Claims Dismissed | Won | |
| Mohamed Haneefa Iqbal | Defendant | Individual | Claims Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Ang Cheng Hock | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiff purchased a property from the first defendant believing the rental yield would rise.
- The plaintiff believed the property could be resold at a higher price.
- The plaintiff claimed the defendants conspired to artificially inflate the rental yield.
- The property is a mixed-use building located at 44 and 46 Changi Road, Singapore.
- The first defendant provided copies of tenancy agreements to the property agent for marketing.
- Golden Sands vacated the third storey of the property due to a fire hazard notice.
- The plaintiff was informed that the third storey was no longer tenanted before exercising the OTP.
5. Formal Citations
- Changi Makan Pte Ltd v Development 2003 Holding Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 541 of 2018, [2020] SGHC 27
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Tenancy agreement between first defendant and tenants was signed. | |
| Tenancy agreement between first defendant and Golden Sands Construction & Engineering Pte Ltd was signed. | |
| Mr. Hau Boon Ping contacted Mr. Lee about the property being up for sale. | |
| Mr. Lee made an offer to purchase the property for SGD 11 million. | |
| Plaintiff company incorporated. | |
| First defendant received a Fire Hazard Abatement Notice from the Singapore Civil Defence Force. | |
| Golden Sands terminated tenancy and vacated the property. | |
| First defendant issued the plaintiff with an Option to Purchase the Property at the purchase price of SGD 11 million. | |
| Plaintiff exercised the Option to Purchase. | |
| Sale of the Property was completed. | |
| Tenants vacated the property upon the expiry of the 2013 Lease. | |
| Property remained vacant. | |
| First storey of the Property was leased to a company related to the plaintiff. | |
| Property was vacant. | |
| New tenant signed a lease for all three storeys of the Property. | |
| Trial began. | |
| Trial continued. | |
| Trial concluded. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that the representation was false.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Falsity of representation
- Reliance on representation
- Damages suffered as a result of reliance
- Unlawful Means Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a conspiracy or that any loss was suffered as a result.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Rescission of contract
- Repayment of monies paid
- Damages for losses suffered
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Unlawful Means Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Food and Beverage
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 elements that must be established for a claim of fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 44 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a representation does not need to be made directly to the plaintiff. |
| Goldrich Venture Pte Ltd and another v Halcyon Offshore Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 990 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it does not matter that the entity bringing the suit did not exist at the time the representation was first made. |
| Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR (R) 307 | Singapore | Cited to illustrate that a representation is a statement which relates to a matter of fact, which may be a past or present fact. |
| Yokogawa Engineering Asia Pte Ltd v Transtel Engineering Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 532 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is a duty to correct a continuing representation that a party knows to be incorrect. |
| Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland Co and others | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the alleged misrepresentation need not be the sole factor which induced the plaintiff into entering into the transaction. |
| JEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks Bloom & Co | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1983] 1 All ER 583 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that as long as a misrepresentation plays a real and substantial part, though not by itself a decisive part, in inducing a plaintiff to act, it is a cause of his loss and he relies on it. |
| Kea Holdings Pte Ltd and another v Gan Boon Hock | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 333 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the person against whom a tort has been committed must prove that he has suffered actual damage. |
| Oriental Investments (SH) Pte Ltd v Catalla Investments Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 1182 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the fact of damage is an essential element of a claim based on the tort of deceit. |
| EFT Holdings, Inc and another v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 860 | Singapore | Cited for the elements that a plaintiff must show to succeed in an unlawful means conspiracy claim. |
| Tribune Investment Trust Inc v Soosan Trading Co Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 407 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of whether or not in each case an adverse inference should be drawn depends on all the evidence adduced and the circumstances of the case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Rental yield
- Fraudulent misrepresentation
- Unlawful means conspiracy
- Tenancy agreement
- Option to Purchase
- Property investment
15.2 Keywords
- fraudulent misrepresentation
- conspiracy
- property sale
- rental yield
- Singapore
- Changi Makan
- Development 2003
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Fraud and Deceit | 85 |
| Misrepresentation | 80 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Conspiracy by Unlawful Means | 70 |
| Property Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Real Estate
- Fraud