Ma Hongjin v Sim Eng Tong: Misrepresentation Claim over Unpaid Loans to Biomax Technologies
In Ma Hongjin v Sim Eng Tong, the plaintiff, Ma Hongjin, sued the defendant, Sim Eng Tong, in the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, alleging fraudulent or negligent misrepresentations that induced her to extend unpaid loans to Biomax Technologies Pte Ltd (BT). The court, presided over by Vinodh Coomaraswamy J, dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that she failed to prove the defendant made the alleged misrepresentations or that she relied on them when extending the loans. The claim was for damages equivalent to the unpaid loans.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Claim Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ma Hongjin sues Sim Eng Tong for misrepresentation regarding loans to Biomax Technologies. The court dismissed the claim, finding no proof of misrepresentations or reliance.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sim Eng Tong | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Ma Hongjin | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Alvin Tan | Wong Thomas & Leong |
| Derek Kang | Cairnhill Law LLC |
| Lucas Lim | Cairnhill Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff lent $6m to Biomax Technologies Pte Ltd (BT) in 2015.
- BT failed to repay $5m of the loans.
- Plaintiff sued BT in a separate action to recover the unpaid loans.
- BT entered creditors’ voluntary liquidation before trial.
- Plaintiff alleges defendant made misrepresentations about BT's financial needs, business prospects, and order books.
- Defendant denies making the misrepresentations.
- Plaintiff entered into four loan agreements with BT in the months following the alleged misrepresentations.
5. Formal Citations
- Ma Hongjin v Sim Eng Tong, Suit No 431 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 84
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Convertible Loan Agreement signed | |
| Supplemental Agreement signed | |
| Shares Investment Agreement signed | |
| June Loan agreement signed | |
| July Loan agreement signed | |
| Meeting between Plaintiff, Mr. Han, Defendant, and Ms. Chua | |
| Master Loan Agreement signed | |
| Loan agreement signed pursuant to Master Loan Agreement | |
| June Loan repaid | |
| October Contract signed | |
| Meeting between Plaintiff, Mr. Han, Defendant, and Ms. Chua | |
| Suit No 765 of 2016 filed | |
| Suit No 13 of 2017 filed | |
| Suit No 431 of 2019 filed | |
| Trial began | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant made a false representation knowing that it was false or in the absence of any genuine belief that it was true.
- Category: Substantive
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty to take reasonable care in making the representation or that the defendant breached that duty of care.
- Category: Substantive
- Inducement
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove that she relied on any of the representations when she extended the unpaid loans to BT.
- Category: Substantive
- Weight of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to discharge her burden of proving that the defendant made the Representations.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages equivalent in value to the unpaid loans
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Negligent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Manufacturing
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 elements required to prove fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to prove negligent misrepresentation. |
| IM Skaugen SE and another v MAN Diesel & Turbo SE and another | High Court | Yes | [2018] SGHC 123 | Singapore | Cited for the elements required to prove negligent misrepresentation and the common elements between fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation. |
| Trans-World (Aluminium) Ltd v Cornelder China (Singapore) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 501 | Singapore | Cited for the burden of proof. |
| Sandz Solutions (Singapore) Pte Ltd and others v Strategic Worldwide Assets Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 562 | Singapore | Cited for observations on the memory of factual witnesses. |
| Goldrich Venture Pte Ltd and another v Halcyon Offshore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 990 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that representations stand or fall together based on the credibility of the plaintiff’s witnesses. |
| Haneda Construction & Machinery Pte Ltd v Huttons Asia Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 294 | Singapore | Cited for assessing a witness’s account for internal consistency and external consistency with extrinsic evidence. |
| Jasviderbir Sing Sethi and another v Sandeep Singh Bhatia and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 14 | Singapore | Cited for weighing evidence in the light of opposing oral evidence and inherent probabilities. |
| Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland Co and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited for the inference of reliance from the materiality of a representation. |
| Lim Koon Park and another v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 150 | Singapore | Cited for the court's duty to explain why it is drawing the inference of reliance on the facts of the case at hand. |
| Broadley Construction Pte Ltd v Alacran Design Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 110 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff would not ordinarily be held to be induced by a misrepresentation if the express contractual terms contradict the misrepresentation. |
| Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1276 | Singapore | Related case involving the plaintiff and SCP Holdings Pte Ltd. |
| Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 277 | Singapore | Related case involving the plaintiff and SCP Holdings Pte Ltd. |
| Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] SGCA 106 | Singapore | Related case involving the plaintiff and SCP Holdings Pte Ltd. |
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
- Negligence
- Inducement
- Reliance
- Enzyme digestor machines
- Biomax Technologies Pte Ltd
- Master Loan Agreement
- Funding Representation
- Sole Use Representation
- Sales Representation
- Profitability Representation
15.2 Keywords
- Misrepresentation
- Loans
- Singapore
- High Court
- Fraud
- Negligence
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation | 90 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 85 |
| Contract Law | 30 |
| Litigation | 20 |
| Witnesses | 20 |
| Evidence | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Evidence Law