Grendus v Lynch: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Conspiracy in Investment

In 2021, in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Jason Grendus sued Stephen David Lynch, Brett Dawkins, William John Patrick Dale, and Aryan Search Pte Ltd, alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and conspiracy to defraud him into making investments in DataCore Innovations LLC and CorePlus Innovations LLC. Grendus had obtained default judgment against Lynch and Dale. Andre Maniam JC dismissed Grendus's claims against Dawkins and Aryan Search, finding that Grendus failed to prove fraudulent misrepresentations or conspiracy by Dawkins.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claims against Mr. Dawkins and Aryan Search dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Jason Grendus sues Stephen Lynch, Brett Dawkins, William Dale, and Aryan Search for fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy related to investments.

1.7 Decision Date

16 August 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Jason Grendus	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Ramachandran Doraisamy Raghunath, Gerard Quek, Mato Kotwani
Stephen David Lynch	Defendant	Individual	Default Judgment	Default
Brett Dawkins	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Roche Eng Keng Loon
William John Patrick Dale	Defendant	Individual	Default Judgment	Default
Aryan Search Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Noor Mohamed Marican, Mohd Munir Marican

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Andre Maniam	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ramachandran Doraisamy Raghunath	PD Legal LLC
Gerard Quek	PD Legal LLC
Mato Kotwani	PD Legal LLC
Roche Eng Keng Loon	R E Law LLC
Noor Mohamed Marican	Marican & Associates
Mohd Munir Marican	Marican & Associates

4. Facts

Mr. Grendus invested US$200,000 in DataCore and CorePlus.
Mr. Dawkins is a recruiter at Aryan Search.
Mr. Dawkins introduced Mr. Grendus to Mr. Lynch of DataCore.
Mr. Grendus, Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Dawkins met on May 24, 2016, to discuss investment opportunities.
Mr. Grendus claimed Mr. Dawkins made misrepresentations about DataCore's financial status.
Mr. Grendus received a Pitch Document from Mr. Lynch on June 10, 2016.
Mr. Grendus claimed he relied on these representations to make the investments.

5. Formal Citations

Jason Grendus v Stephen David Lynch, Suit No 1007 of 2018, [2021] SGHC 191

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2008-01-01	Aryan Search established.
2015-12-01	Mr. Dawkins introduced to Mr. Grendus.
2016-02-04	Mr. Lynch sent Mr. Dawkins an email regarding DataCore.
2016-04-21	Email exchange between Mr. Lynch and Mr. Dawkins regarding Shanda.
2016-05-03	Mr. Dale emailed Mr. Dawkins information about DataCore.
2016-05-10	Mr. Lynch met with Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Vikram of Aryan Search.
2016-05-11	Mr. Lynch emailed Mr. Dawkins and Mr. Vikram regarding due diligence.
2016-05-17	Mr. Dale emailed Mr. Dawkins documents related to DataCore.
2016-05-24	Meeting between Mr. Grendus, Mr. Lynch, and Mr. Dawkins.
2016-06-10	Mr. Lynch emailed Mr. Grendus information about investing in DataCore.
2016-06-20	Mr. Dawkins emailed Mr. Dale regarding recruitment and investor introductions.
2016-06-24	Mr. Grendus made the Investments.
2017-06-01	Mr. Dawkins extended a personal loan to Mr. Lynch.
2018-01-04	Mr. Lynch was bankrupt.
2018-10-01	Mr. Grendus sued.
2018-11-23	Mr. Grendus obtained default judgment against Mr. Lynch.
2019-09-14	Mr. Grendus obtained default judgment against Mr. Dale.
2021-03-16	Trial began.
2021-05-18	Judgment reserved.
2021-08-17	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Grendus failed to prove that Mr. Dawkins fraudulently made any false representations which induced Mr. Grendus to make the Investments.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - False Representation
  - Inducement
  - Reliance
Negligent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Dawkins owed Mr. Grendus no relevant duty of care and was not negligent in giving Mr. Grendus the impression that DataCore was a going concern.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Duty of Care
  - Breach of Duty
  - Causation
  - Damages
Conspiracy to Defraud
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Dawkins was not part of any conspiracy to defraud Mr. Grendus.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Agreement
  - Unlawful Act
  - Intent to Injure
Vicarious Liability
- Outcome: The court found that as Mr. Dawkins was not liable, there was no vicarious liability on the part of Aryan Search.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Employment Relationship
  - Course of Employment
Admissibility of Similar Fact Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that Mr. Lee-Simion's evidence ought properly to be excluded, and in any event is not accepted.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Rescission of DataCore Subscription
Rescission of CorePlus Debenture
Monetary Damages
Interest
Costs

9. Cause of Actions

Fraudulent Misrepresentation
Negligent Misrepresentation
Conspiracy to Defraud

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Recruitment
Finance

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lazarus Estates Ltd v Beasley	Queen's Bench	No	[1956] 1 QB 702	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court is careful not to find fraud unless it is distinctly pleaded and proved.
Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 284	Singapore	Cited for the principle that silence is not actionable as a misrepresentation if there is no duty to speak.
EA Apartments Pte Ltd v Tan Bek	High Court	Yes	[2017] 3 SLR 559	Singapore	Cited for the principle that silence is not actionable as a misrepresentation if there is no duty to speak.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2008] 2 SLR(R) 239	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court has a discretion to exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
Tan Meng Jee v PP	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 2 SLR(R) 178	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court has a discretion to exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 1205	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court has a discretion to exclude evidence if its prejudicial effect outweighs its probative value.
Hin Hup Bus Service (a firm) v Tay Chwee Hiang	High Court	Yes	[2006] 4 SLR(R) 723	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the principles relating to similar fact evidence in criminal cases are equally applicable to civil cases.
Public Prosecutor v Mas Swan bin Adnan	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 107	Singapore	Cited for the principle that for similar fact evidence to be admissible, it must have distinct and immediate reference to the particular matter in question and not simply be evidence of general disposition.
Sun Electric Power Pte Ltd v RCMA Asia Pte Ltd (formerly known as Tong Teik Pte Ltd)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] SGCA 60	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a company whose total liabilities exceed its total assets is not thereby unable to pay its debts.
Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 886	Singapore	Cited for the principle that there must be an advisory relationship to give rise to a duty of care.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Misrepresentation
Fraud
Conspiracy
Investment
Due Diligence
Going Concern
Shanda Financing
Pitch Document
Recruiter
Vicarious Liability

15.2 Keywords

misrepresentation
fraud
investment
singapore
court
civil
law
judgment

16. Subjects

Misrepresentation
Fraud
Conspiracy
Investment Law
Civil Litigation

17. Areas of Law

Tort
Misrepresentation
Fraud
Conspiracy
Evidence
Admissibility of evidence