Yong Khong Yoong Mark v Ting Choon Meng: Misrepresentation & Unlawful Means Conspiracy

The Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore dismissed the appeal by Yong Khong Yoong Mark, Emily Hwang Mei Chen, and Medivice Investment Limited against Ting Choon Meng and Chua Ngak Hwee. The appellants claimed they were induced by the respondents' misrepresentations to make loans and enter into a subscription agreement with HealthSTATS International Pte Ltd. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the appellants failed to prove that the representations induced them to enter into the subscription agreement. The claim was for misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal dismissed in misrepresentation and unlawful means conspiracy case. The court found the appellants failed to prove inducement by the respondents' representations.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Yong Khong Yoong MarkAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Emily Hwang Mei ChenAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Medivice Investment LimitedAppellantCorporationAppeal DismissedLost
Ting Choon MengRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon
Chua Ngak HweeRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudge of the Appellate DivisionYes
Woo Bih LiJudge of the Appellate DivisionNo
Hoo Sheau PengJudge of the High CourtNo

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Nair Suresh SukumaranPK Wong & Nair LLC
Bhatt Chantik JayeshPK Wong & Nair LLC
Kesavan NairBayfront Law LLC
Melissa LeongBayfront Law LLC

4. Facts

  1. Appellants claimed they were induced by respondents' misrepresentations to make loans to HealthSTATS International.
  2. Loans totaling $2.5m were made to HealthSTATS International from January to July 2016.
  3. A Subscription Agreement was entered into in August 2016 for $5m.
  4. Appellants alleged misrepresentations regarding regulatory approvals, revenue, and product launch.
  5. Uncharted Holdings Limited withdrew from a $27m investment after due diligence.
  6. Mr. Yong considered a small private investment to help Healthstats International meet production obligations.
  7. Mr. Yong brought in Mr. Joshua Soh as CEO of Healthstats International to change the sales model.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Yong Khong Yoong Mark and others v Ting Choon Meng and another, Civil Appeal No 121 of 2021, [2022] SGHC(A) 21

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Representations made by respondents to appellants
Representations made by respondents to appellants
Loans made to HealthSTATS International Pte Ltd
Loans made to HealthSTATS International Pte Ltd
Subscription Agreement entered into
Statement of claim (Amendment No 2) dated
Suit No 1140 of 2018 filed
Civil Appeal No 121 of 2021 filed
Judgment delivered

7. Legal Issues

  1. Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellants failed to prove that the representations induced them to enter into the subscription agreement.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Fraudulent misrepresentation
      • Negligent misrepresentation
      • Inducement
  2. Unlawful Means Conspiracy
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the claim of unlawful means conspiracy.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Misrepresentation
  • Fraud and Deceit
  • Negligence
  • Unlawful Means Conspiracy

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Yong Khong Yoong Mark and others v Ting Choon Meng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 246SingaporeThe current appeal is against the High Court judge’s decision in this case to dismiss the claims against the respondents.
Browne v DunnN/AYes(1893) 6 R 67N/ACited regarding the rule in Browne v Dunn, concerning cross-examination of witnesses.

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

  • Misrepresentation
  • Unlawful Means Conspiracy
  • Subscription Agreement
  • HealthSTATS International
  • Regulatory Representation
  • Revenue Representation
  • Product Representation
  • China Contracts
  • Due Diligence

15.2 Keywords

  • Misrepresentation
  • Conspiracy
  • Contract
  • Appeal
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misrepresentation90
Contract Law70
Fraud and Deceit60
Torts50
Conspiracy by Unlawful Means50

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Misrepresentation
  • Conspiracy