Millsopp v Then Feng: Appeal Dismissed in FX Agreement Dispute
Michael Joseph Millsopp appealed to the Appellate Division of the High Court of Singapore against the decision of the High Court to dismiss his claims against Then Feng for misrepresentation, breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The claims arose from a disputed agreement regarding the transfer of £1,571,394.13. Millsopp claimed it was a foreign exchange services agreement, while Then Feng contended it was an interest-free loan. The High Court dismissed Millsopp's claims based on a 'no case to answer' submission, finding that Millsopp failed to prove the existence of the FX Agreement. The Appellate Division upheld the High Court's decision, dismissing the appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Appellate Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal dismissed due to failure to prove FX agreement. Funds transfer dispute involving misrepresentation, breach of contract, conversion, and unjust enrichment claims.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Then Feng | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Appeal Upheld | Won | |
| Michael Joseph Millsopp | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | Judge of the Appellate Division | Yes |
| Quentin Loh | Judge of the Appellate Division | No |
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judge of the High Court | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wong Wai Keong Anthony | Lee & Lee |
| Tay Wei Loong Julian | Lee & Lee |
4. Facts
- Appellant transferred £1,571,394.13 to a Singapore bank account held by Ling Capital Pte Ltd.
- Appellant claimed the transfer was pursuant to a foreign exchange services agreement (FX Agreement).
- Respondent denied the FX Agreement, claiming the funds were an interest-free loan.
- The funds or their equivalent were not returned to the appellant.
- The Judge upheld the respondent’s “no case to answer” submission.
- The appellant’s entire pleaded case is inextricably intertwined with his characterisation of his agreement with the respondent as an FX Agreement.
5. Formal Citations
- Millsopp, Michael Joseph v Then Feng, Civil Appeal No 119 of 2021, [2022] SGHC(A) 27
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant transferred £1,571,394.13 to Ling Capital Pte Ltd's Singapore bank account. | |
| Appellant suggested the Funds be remitted in USD. | |
| Appellant referenced respondent converting the Funds to USD in a telephone call. | |
| Suit No 1104 of 2019 commenced. | |
| Appellant’s Statement of Claim (Amendment No 2) dated. | |
| Civil Appeal No 119 of 2021 filed. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant failed to prove the existence of the FX Agreement, which was the basis of the breach of contract claim.
- Category: Substantive
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant's misrepresentation claim was premised on the existence of the FX Agreement, which the appellant failed to prove.
- Category: Substantive
- Conversion
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant's conversion claim was premised on the existence of the FX Agreement, which the appellant failed to prove.
- Category: Substantive
- Unjust Enrichment
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant's unjust enrichment claim was premised on the existence of the FX Agreement, which the appellant failed to prove.
- Category: Substantive
- No Case to Answer
- Outcome: The court upheld the respondent's submission of 'no case to answer', finding that the appellant failed to establish a prima facie case.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of Contract
- Conversion
- Unjust Enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Financial Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 304 | Singapore | Cited for the legal framework that applies in a civil case where a defendant makes a submission of “no case to answer”. |
| Lena Leowardi v Yeap Cheen Soo | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 581 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court will assume that any evidence led by the plaintiff is true, unless it is inherently incredible or out of common sense. |
| Lim Eng Hock Peter v Lin Jian Wei and another | N/A | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 1004 | Singapore | Cited regarding the test of whether there is no case to answer. |
| Relfo Ltd (in liquidation) v Bhimji Velji Jadva Varsani | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 657 | Singapore | Cited regarding the test of whether there is no case to answer. |
| Tan Chin Hock v Teo Cher Koon and another and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC(A) 15 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a trier of fact is not bound to prefer one of the parties’ assertions. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Foreign Exchange Services Agreement
- FX Agreement
- No Case to Answer
- Prima Facie Case
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of Contract
- Conversion
- Unjust Enrichment
- Remittance Agreement
15.2 Keywords
- Foreign Exchange
- Breach of Contract
- Misrepresentation
- Conversion
- Unjust Enrichment
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Breach of Contract | 80 |
| Misrepresentation | 75 |
| Conversion | 70 |
| Civil Litigation | 70 |
| Unjust Enrichment | 65 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Evidence | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Foreign Exchange
- Civil Procedure