Yong Khong Yoong v Ting Choon Meng: Misrepresentation, Fraud, and Conspiracy in Healthstats Investment
In Yong Khong Yoong Mark and others v Ting Choon Meng and another, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard a case where the plaintiffs, Yong Khong Yoong Mark, Emily Hwang Mei Chen, and Medivice Investment Limited, claimed that the defendants, Ting Choon Meng and Chua Ngak Hwee, made fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations that induced them to make loans and enter into a subscription agreement with HealthSTATS International Pte Ltd. The plaintiffs sought damages for misrepresentation and conspiracy. The court dismissed the plaintiffs' claims, finding no actionable misrepresentation or unlawful means conspiracy.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiffs allege fraudulent misrepresentation inducing loans and a subscription agreement. Court dismisses claims, finding no actionable misrepresentation or conspiracy.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yong Khong Yoong Mark | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Emily Hwang Mei Chen | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Medivice Investment Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Ting Choon Meng | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Chua Ngak Hwee | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs claim defendants' misrepresentations induced loans and subscription agreement with HealthSTATS International.
- Plaintiffs allege defendants painted a misleading picture of HealthSTATS International's viability.
- Defendants deny misrepresentations and unlawful means conspiracy.
- Dr. Ting was plaintiffs' personal physician and knew they were investors.
- Healthstats China entered into two contracts with Healthstats International in 2015.
- Uncharted Holdings decided not to proceed with purchasing Healthstats International's shares after due diligence.
- Plaintiffs allege three specific misrepresentations regarding regulatory approvals, revenue, and product launch.
5. Formal Citations
- Yong Khong Yoong Mark and others v Ting Choon Meng and another, Suit No 1140 of 2018, [2021] SGHC 246
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Healthstats International founded | |
| BPro G1 launched | |
| BPro G1 obtained FDA approval | |
| BPro G1 obtained CE approval | |
| BPro G1 obtained HSA approval | |
| Healthstats China incorporated | |
| BPro G1 obtained CFDA approval | |
| Michael Tan became finance manager of Healthstats International | |
| CasPro obtained FDA, CE, and HSA approval | |
| Healthstats International started work on BPro G2 | |
| Lock Mei Chui became deputy head of Quality Management Systems and Regulatory Affairs | |
| Winsan acquired 51% of shares in Healthstats China | |
| First China Contract signed | |
| Healthstats International received S$1.5m from Healthstats China | |
| Mr. Yong and Ms. Hwang met Dr. Ting for dinner | |
| Defendants and Mr. Yong had business meetings to discuss investment | |
| Contract Approval Form signed by Winsan's representatives | |
| Second China Contract signed | |
| Letter of Intent executed by Mr. Yong | |
| Mr. Yong attended meeting at Healthstats International's office | |
| Mr. Yong and Ms. Hwang attended meeting at Ms. Sim's house | |
| Copies of China Contracts provided to Mr. Goh | |
| Ms. Hwang transferred S$1m to Healthstats International | |
| Sale and Purchase Agreement entered into | |
| Mr. Soh appointed CEO of Healthstats International | |
| Sale and Purchase Agreement amended | |
| DLA Piper Report issued | |
| Dr. Ting requested further loan to Healthstats International | |
| Baker & McKenzie Report issued | |
| Notice of Termination sent to Healthstats International | |
| S$500,000 loan transferred to Healthstats International | |
| S$500,000 loan transferred to Healthstats International | |
| Ms. Hwang entered into Subscription Agreement | |
| Completion of Subscription Agreement | |
| Medivice nominated Mr. Soh as director of Healthstats International | |
| S$40,000 paid by Ms. Hwang through Medivice | |
| S$20,000 paid by Ms. Hwang through Medivice | |
| S$39,000 paid by Ms. Hwang through Medivice | |
| S$401,000 paid by Ms. Hwang through Medivice | |
| S$2m paid by Ms. Hwang through Medivice | |
| BPro G2 received FDA approval | |
| Healthstats International re-acquired Winsan’s shares in Healthstats China | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove that the alleged representations were actionable misrepresentations.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Fraudulent misrepresentation
- Negligent misrepresentation
- Inducement
- Conspiracy
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish an unlawful means conspiracy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unlawful means conspiracy
- Intent to injure
- Admissibility of Evidence
- Outcome: The court addressed the admissibility of hearsay evidence in relation to statements made by Ms. Yan.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Hearsay
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages for fraudulent or negligent misrepresentation
- Damages for misrepresentation pursuant to s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act
- Declaration that the defendants participated in a conspiracy to injure them by unlawful means
- Damages for conspiracy
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Unlawful Means Conspiracy
- Misrepresentation under Misrepresentation Act
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Healthcare
- Medical Device Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Koon Park and another v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another | High Court | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited for the elements to ascertain whether an operative misrepresentation has been made. |
| 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 to prove fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Ma Hongjin v Sim Eng Tong | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 84 | Singapore | Cited for the elements to prove fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| IM Skaugen SE and another v MAN Diesel & Turbo SE and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 123 | Singapore | Cited for the five elements to prove negligent misrepresentation. |
| Trans-World (Aluminium) Ltd v Cornelder China (Singapore) | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 501 | Singapore | Cited for the burden of proving that the defendants made the Regulatory Representation rests on the plaintiffs. |
| Toh Eng Tiah v Jiang Angelina and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1176 | Singapore | Cited for the principles relating to sham contracts. |
| Tonny Permana v One Tree Capital Management Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 37 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between actionable misrepresentations and a future promise or statement of intention. |
| Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 307 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a statement of intention can only constitute an actionable misrepresentation if it is shown that, at the time it was made, the person who made it had no intention of doing what he asserted he would do. |
| Jurong Town Corp v Wishing Star Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 283 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a person who has made a false representation cannot escape its consequences just because the innocent party has made his own inquiry or due diligence. |
| Fong Maun Yee and another v Yoong Weng Ho Robert | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 751 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the misrepresentation must have played a “real and substantial” role in inducing the representee to act. |
| Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland Co and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that reliance may be inferred from the materiality of a representation where the natural and probable result of the representation is to induce the representee to act as he did. |
| Saga Foodstuffs Manufacturing (Pte) Ltd v Best Food Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 1013 | Singapore | Cited for the hearsay rule. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3556 (suing on behalf of itself and all subsidiary proprietors of Northstar @ AMK) v Orion-One Development Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and another | High Court | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 373 | Singapore | Cited for the hearsay rule. |
| Gimpex Ltd v Unity Holdings Business Ltd and others and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 686 | Singapore | Cited for the burden of proving the ground of unavailability and a mere allegation that Ms Yan was unavailable to give evidence is not acceptable. |
| Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 886 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that representations that contain statements of future intention can still be actionable misrepresentations if, at the time the representation was made, the maker of the statement had no intention whatsoever to carry out the matters expressed in the statement. |
| 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 to succeed in a claim for conspiracy by unlawful means. |
| Crest Capital Asia Pte Ltd and others v OUE Lippo Healthcare Ltd (formerly known as International Healthway Corp Ltd) and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 1337 | Singapore | Cited for the essence of unlawful means conspiracy is the defendants’ combination and undertaking of an unlawful course of action, accompanied by the intention to injure by unlawful means. |
| New Ping Ping Pauline v Eng’s Noodles House Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 271 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the alleged conspirators must be sufficiently aware of the surrounding circumstances and share the same object. |
| Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 801 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a relatively high standard of proof must be satisfied by the representee before a fraudulent misrepresentation can be established successfully against the representor. |
| Derry v Peek | UK House of Lords | Yes | 14 App Cas 337 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that to establish fraud, the plaintiffs must prove that false representations were made knowingly; without belief in their truth; or recklessly, with the defendants being careless whether they were true or false. |
| Jian Li Investments Holding Pte Ltd and others v Healthstats International Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 38 | Singapore | The plaintiffs’ counsel referred to Jian Li Investments in which the judge observed that Dr Ting and Mr Chua had not acted with candour and honesty. |
| Ng Kong Yeam (suing by Ling Towi Sing (alias Ling Chooi Seng) and others) v Kay Swee Pin and another | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 219 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that unless the plaintiff is able to identify a provision in the EA that would render the evidence on the first defendant’s propensity to be dishonest relevant, such bad character evidence is irrelevant to the present proceedings. |
| Rockline Ltd and others v Anil Thadani and others | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 209 | Singapore | Cited for the rationale behind s 54 of the EA. |
| Abdul Gani and others v State of Madhya Pradesh | Supreme Court | Yes | AIR 1954 SC 31 | India | Cited for the principle that the court has the unenviable task of navigating through the inconsistencies and contradictions carefully and of thoroughly “sift[ing] the grain from the chaff” in order to ascertain the truths of the case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Datuk Haji Harun Bin Haji Idris (No 2) | Federal Court | Yes | [1977] 1 MLJ 15 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that there is no rule of law that a witness’s testimony must either be believed in its entirety or not at all. The court can accept one part and reject the other. |
| Attorney-General v Lee Kwai Hou Howard, Xu Yuen Chen, Loh Hong Puey Andrew, Choo Zheng Xi, Lee Song Kwang and Ting Choon Meng | District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 114 | Singapore | The plaintiffs’ counsel referred to Attorney-General v Lee Kwai Hou Howard in which the district judge described Dr Ting’s testimony as “delirious, to say the least …”. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- HealthSTATS International
- BPro devices
- CasPro devices
- China Contracts
- Subscription Agreement
- Regulatory approvals
- Revenue forecast
- Due diligence
- Winsan
- Uncharted Holdings
- Medivice
- CEO
- FDA
- CFDA
15.2 Keywords
- misrepresentation
- fraud
- conspiracy
- investment
- HealthSTATS International
- BPro
- CasPro
- due diligence
- Singapore
- contract
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation | 85 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 70 |
| Negligent misrepresentation | 65 |
| Conspiracy by Unlawful Means | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Misrepresentation
- Conspiracy
- Investment Law