Dextra Partners v. Lavrentiadis: Breach of Trust & Fiduciary Duty in Fund Management

The Court of Appeal heard appeals by Dextra Partners Pte Ltd and Bernhard Wilhelm Rudolf Weber against the High Court's decision in favor of Lavrentios Lavrentiadis, concerning the mismanagement of funds held in trust for Lavrentiadis. Lavrentiadis also appealed specific portions of the High Court's decision. The Court of Appeal, with Andrew Phang Boon Leong JCA delivering the judgment, dismissed Dextra and Weber's appeal in its entirety and allowed Lavrentiadis's appeal in part, modifying the High Court's orders regarding certain fees and payments.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dextra Partners and Weber appealed a judgment finding them liable for breach of trust and fiduciary duty in managing Lavrentiadis' funds. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Bernhard Wilhelm Rudolf WeberApplicant, Appellant, Respondent, DefendantIndividualAppeal dismissed in partPartial
Dextra Partners Pte LtdApplicant, Appellant, Respondent, DefendantCorporationAppeal dismissed in partPartial
Lavrentios LavrentiadisRespondent, Appellant, PlaintiffIndividualAppeal allowed in partPartial

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew Phang Boon LeongJustice of the Court of AppealYes
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Philip Fong Yeng FattHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Koh Xian Wei JeffreyHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Kevin Koh Zhi RongHarry Elias Partnership LLP
Lee Yu Lun DarrellWongPartnership LLP
Tan Kia HuaWongPartnership LLP
Sim Bock EngWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. Dextra and Weber managed funds in trust for Lavrentiadis.
  2. Lavrentiadis commenced a suit alleging unauthorized transactions.
  3. Dextra accepted a duty to account to Lavrentiadis.
  4. Discrepancies arose in statements of accounts provided to Lavrentiadis.
  5. Dextra engaged an expert to account for the funds' utilization.
  6. The Judge found that the Investment Swap was an afterthought.
  7. The Judge found that the loans to Far West had breached the no-conflict rule.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Dextra Partners Pte Ltd and anothervLavrentiadis, Lavrentios and another appealand another matter, , [2021] SGCA 24
  2. Dextra Partners Pte Ltd, Civil Appeal No 134 of 2020, Civil Appeal No 134 of 2020
  3. Dextra Partners Pte Ltd, Summons No 13 of 2021, Summons No 13 of 2021
  4. Lavrentios Lavrentiadis, Civil Appeal No 143 of 2020, Civil Appeal No 143 of 2020
  5. Lavrentios Lavrentiadis, Suit No 106 of 2018, Suit No 106 of 2018

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Dextra Partners Pte Ltd received EUR 39,735,362.82 and USD 12.67m for Lavrentios Lavrentiadis's account.
Dextra Partners Pte Ltd received EUR 39,735,362.82 and USD 12.67m for Lavrentios Lavrentiadis's account.
Alleged date of Investment Swap.
Dextra Partners Pte Ltd received USD 630,160.39 for Lavrentios Lavrentiadis's account.
Dextra and Weber created 2018 documents.
Pre-trial conference held.
Custody fees paid to DBS for the period after 8 September 2019 in proportion to the Jade AP1 Hellenic Bank shares were authorized.
Hearing date.
Judgment reserved.
Greek news articles reported on Lavrentiadis’s conviction in criminal proceedings in Greece.
Greek news articles reported on Lavrentiadis’s sentence in criminal proceedings in Greece.
Dextra and Weber sought leave to adduce further evidence in relation to CA 134, under CA/SUM 13/2021.
Revised bundle of illustrative charts filed.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Trust
    • Outcome: Dextra and Weber found to have breached their duties as trustees.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Unauthorized transactions
      • Misappropriation of funds
  2. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: Weber found to have breached his fiduciary duties to Lavrentiadis.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Conflict of interest
      • Dishonest assistance
  3. Appellate Intervention
    • Outcome: The Court of Appeal reiterated the high threshold for appellate intervention, especially regarding findings of fact based on witness credibility.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Threshold for intervention
      • Assessment of evidence
  4. Taking of Accounts
    • Outcome: The Court held that the taking of accounts at trial was appropriate and that Dextra and Weber had sufficient opportunity to adduce documents.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Duty to account
      • Sufficiency of evidence

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Payment of sums due under the Dextra Trust
  2. Accounts, inquiries, and directions

9. Cause of Actions

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

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Breach of Trust
  • Fiduciary Duty

11. Industries

  • Finance
  • Investment Management

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lavrentiadis, Lavrentios v Dextra Partners Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2020] SGHC 146SingaporeOriginal case in the High Court that is being appealed.
Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala v Compañia De Navegación Palomar, SA and others and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 894SingaporeCited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to overturn the trial judge’s findings of fact, especially where the findings hinge on the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility and veracity of witnesses.
Yong Kheng Leong and another v Panweld Trading Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 SLR 173SingaporeCited for the principle that the threshold for appellate intervention is a high one and an appellate court should be slow to overturn the trial judge’s findings of fact.
UVJ v UVHCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 336SingaporeCited for the proposition that it is unnecessary for a separate account to be conducted.
Libertarian Investments Ltd v Thomas Alexej HallHong Kong Court of Final AppealYes(2013) 16 HKCFAR 681Hong KongCited for the proposition that it is unnecessary for a separate account to be conducted.
Cheong Soh Chin and others v Eng Chiet Shoong and othersHigh CourtYes[2019] 4 SLR 714SingaporeCited for the principle that where a beneficiary falsifies an entry in the account, the burden falls on the trustee to prove that the disbursement was authorized.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Trust
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Investment Swap
  • Alter Ego
  • Taking of Accounts
  • Authorisation
  • Misappropriation
  • AUM
  • Jade AP1
  • Jade DCC

15.2 Keywords

  • Trust
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Breach of Trust
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal
  • Investment
  • Funds
  • Account
  • Weber
  • Lavrentiadis
  • Dextra Partners

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Fiduciary Duties90
Trust Law85
Chancery and Equity70
Civil Procedure60
Appellate Practice50
Contract Law40
Arbitration30

16. Subjects

  • Trust Law
  • Fiduciary Law
  • Commercial Litigation
  • Appellate Procedure