Bay Lim Piang v Lye Cher Kang: Fraudulent Misrepresentation & Loan Recission
In the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Bay Lim Piang sued Lye Cher Kang Alan for fraudulent misrepresentation, misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of contract, related to loans Bay made to Alan. Bay claimed Alan made fraudulent representations inducing him to loan S$2,604,070.60 to Alan. The court found in favor of Bay on the claims of fraudulent misrepresentation, misrepresentation under the Misrepresentation Act, and negligent misrepresentation, entitling Bay to recission of the loans or damages of S$2,604,070.60. Alan's appeal was dismissed.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Plaintiff Bay sued Defendant Alan for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding loans. The court ruled in favor of Bay, entitling him to loan recission.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bay Lim Piang | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Lye Cher Kang | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kwek Mean Luck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Bay loaned Alan S$2,604,070.60 based on Alan's representations about securing the release of seized funds.
- Alan claimed he was defrauded by Brendan and merely passed on Brendan's representations to Bay.
- Brendan pleaded guilty to 25 charges of cheating and was sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment.
- Alan signed agreements acknowledging Bay's loans to assist in retrieving Alan's frozen monies.
- Alan claimed the 27 July 2014 Agreement was a sham document to appease Bay's ex-wife.
- Bay never met Brendan and only knew of him through Alan.
- Alan did not provide a satisfactory explanation for what happened to approximately S$352,956.40 of the loaned money.
5. Formal Citations
- Bay Lim Piang v Lye Cher Kang, Suit No 528 of 2020, [2023] SGHC 13
- Public Prosecutor v Don Brendan Robert, , [2016] SGDC 208
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Agreement dated 27 July 2014 | |
| Brendan pleaded guilty to 25 charges of cheating | |
| Brendan sentenced to 7 years’ imprisonment | |
| Trial began | |
| Parties’ Agreed List of Issues dated 11 October 2022 | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant made fraudulent misrepresentations to the plaintiff, inducing the plaintiff to loan money to the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False representation of fact
- Intention to induce reliance
- Actual reliance
- Damages suffered
- Knowledge of falsity
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
- (1889) 14 App Cas 337
- Misrepresentation Act Section 2(1)
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant was liable for misrepresentation under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Misrepresentation
- Contract entered after misrepresentation
- Loss suffered
- Lack of reasonable ground to believe representation was true
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 1 SLR 997
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant was liable for negligent misrepresentation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False representation of fact
- Actual reliance
- Duty of care
- Breach of duty of care
- Causation of damage
- Related Cases:
- [2021] SGHC 84
- [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff was not entitled to enforce the 27 July 2014 Agreement for want of consideration.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Existence of a valid contract
- Terms of the contract
- Breach of contract
- Consideration
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 2 SLR(R) 332
8. Remedies Sought
- Recission of Loans
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Misrepresentation under Misrepresentation Act
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
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 that need to be established to ground a claim for fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Lim Bee Lan v Lee Juan Loong and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 234 | Singapore | Cited regarding the question of whether a representation can be made to the plaintiff through an intermediary or agent of the plaintiff, but found not applicable to the present case. |
| Liu Yanzhe and another v Tan Eu Jin and others | High Court | Yes | [2019] SGHC 67 | Singapore | Cited regarding the issue of whether a representor claims to be an intermediary and makes representations on behalf of another, he could nevertheless be liable for the representation if he had “reason to adopt [the] representation as his own”. |
| 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 observation that “Dishonesty is the touchstone which distinguishes fraudulent misrepresentation from other forms of misrepresentation.” |
| Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland Co | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that “Dishonesty is the touchstone which distinguishes fraudulent misrepresentation from other forms of misrepresentation.” |
| Derry v Peek | House of Lords | Yes | (1889) 14 App Cas 337 | England and Wales | Cited for the holding that fraud is proved when it is shown that a false representation has been made: (a) knowingly; (b) without belief in its truth; or (c) recklessly, careless whether it be true or false. |
| RBC Properties Pte Ltd v Defu Furniture Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 997 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that whether the representor had reasonable grounds for believing that his representations were true must be assessed objectively. |
| Ma Hongjin v Sim Eng Tong | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 84 | Singapore | Cited for the elements that the plaintiff must prove in a claim for negligent misrepresentation. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine the existence of a duty of care in all claims arising out of negligence regardless of the nature of the damage caused. |
| Ye Huishi Rachel v Ng Ke Ming Jerry | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 250 | Singapore | Cited regarding the element of deceit of third parties, which was required to establish that the agreement was a sham document. |
| Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 332 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that consideration must always move from the promisee to the promisor. |
| Ma Hongjin v SCP Holding Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 304 | Singapore | Cited for the holding that the element of request is necessary in order to establish a link between the parties concerned. |
| Public Prosecutor v Don Brendan Robert | State Courts | Yes | [2016] SGDC 208 | Singapore | Cited for background information on Brendan's criminal charges. |
| Song Jianbo v Sunmax Global Capital Fund 1 Pte Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 217 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that a party should not be taken by surprise or suffer prejudice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation Act | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act 1909 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Misrepresentation Act
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Seized Sum
- Loans
- Brendan
- CAD
- MRA
- 27 July 2014 Agreement
15.2 Keywords
- fraudulent misrepresentation
- misrepresentation
- negligence
- contract
- loan
- Singapore
- high court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation | 95 |
| Fraudulent misrepresentation | 90 |
| Contract Law | 80 |
| Negligent misrepresentation | 75 |
| Negligence | 60 |
| Damages | 50 |
| Forbearance | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Misrepresentation
- Civil Litigation