Exim & Mfr Holdings Pte Ltd v Tan Yee Ling Ivy: Account Order & Payment for Misappropriated Dividends

In a suit before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Exim & Mfr Holdings Pte Ltd sued Tan Yee Ling Ivy, Kau Guo Hao, Wedding Day Pte Ltd, Lam Hui Ping Fiona, and Siah Chee Wee Gary for misappropriation of funds. Exim sought an account of dividend cheques totaling $631,285.62 that were diverted to Ivy and her associates instead of the intended recipients, Mr. Ng Sin Kwee and Mdm Lee Suan Ho. The court found that Ivy had misappropriated the funds and rejected her defenses of 'secret instructions' and 'cash payments'. The court ordered Ivy to pay Exim $631,285.62 and the costs of the taking of accounts.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court ordered Ivy to pay Exim $631,285.62 after finding she misappropriated dividend cheques. The court rejected her claims of secret instructions and cash payments.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Exim & Mfr Holdings Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWonChia Jin Chong Daniel, Tan Ei Leen, Nicole Thong Wen Teng
Tan Yee Ling Ivy (Chen Yiling)DefendantIndividualPayment OrderedLostWalter Ferix Silvester, Tan Hoe Shuen
Kau Guo HaoDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
Wedding Day Pte LtdDefendantCorporationDefault Judgment EnteredDefault
Lam Hui Ping FionaDefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
Siah Chee Wee Gary (Xie Zhiwei Gary)DefendantIndividualNeutralNeutral
Ng Sin KweeThird PartyIndividualNeutralNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andre ManiamJudge of the High CourtYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Chia Jin Chong DanielColeman Street Chambers LLC
Tan Ei LeenColeman Street Chambers LLC
Nicole Thong Wen TengColeman Street Chambers LLC
Walter Ferix SilvesterSilvester Legal LLC
Tan Hoe ShuenSilvester Legal LLC

4. Facts

  1. Ivy was the Human Resource and Finance Manager of Exim.
  2. Ivy was in charge of Exim’s Finance Department and prepared dividend cheques.
  3. Ivy made out four dividend cheques to third-party payees instead of Mr. Ng and Mdm Lee.
  4. The cheque proceeds totaling $631,285.62 went to Ivy directly or indirectly.
  5. Ivy claimed Mr. Ng gave her secret instructions to make out the cheques as she did.
  6. Ivy claimed she paid Mr. Ng the $631,285.62 from her own cash.
  7. The court found Ivy's claims of secret instructions and cash payments unbelievable.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Exim & Mfr Holdings Pte Ltd v Tan Yee Ling Ivy and others, Suit No 209 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 263
  2. Ta Tun Electrical Wire & Cable (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Toh You Kang (Zhuo Youkang) and others, , HC/S 124/2018

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Ivy began employment at Exim
Cheque to RABH and Gary issued
Cheque to RABH deposited
Ivy received $50,000 from RABH
Ivy received $17,601.60 from RABH
Cheque to Gary deposited
Gary paid Ivy $60,000
Gary paid Ivy $89,934
Cheque to Ivy and Wedding Day issued
Cheque to Ivy deposited
Ivy resigned from Exim
Cheque to Wedding Day deposited
Ivy's last day of work at Exim
Exim sued Ivy and others
Default judgment entered against Wedding Day
Gary's Affidavit dated
Trial began
Trial concluded
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court found that Ivy, as a fiduciary, breached her duty by taking the cheque proceeds for herself.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Misappropriation of funds
      • Failure to account
  2. Taking of Accounts
    • Outcome: The court ordered Ivy to pay the amount certified due on the taking of accounts.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Account
  2. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty
  • Misappropriation of Funds

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Browne v DunnN/AYes[1893] 6 R 67N/ACited regarding the rule that a witness must be cross-examined on a point before it can be argued that they should be disbelieved.
Goh Say Hun v Ooi Chit LeeCourt of AppealYes[1994] 1 SLR(R) 958SingaporeCited for the principle that a trustee is obliged to make good any amount they have failed to account for, and an order for payment is appropriate.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 43 r 1 of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 406Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Dividend cheques
  • Misappropriation
  • Fiduciary duty
  • Secret instructions
  • Cash payments
  • Taking of accounts
  • Third-party payees

15.2 Keywords

  • misappropriation
  • fiduciary duty
  • account
  • dividends
  • Singapore
  • High Court

16. Subjects

  • Trusts
  • Equity
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Accounting
  • Civil Litigation

17. Areas of Law

  • Equity
  • Remedies
  • Account
  • Trust Law
  • Fiduciary Duty