Micro Tellers v Cheng Yi Han: Breach of Trust, Dishonest Assistance & Conspiracy
In the Singapore International Commercial Court, The Micro Tellers Network Limited, Michael Lin Daoji, Rio Lim Yong Chee, and Wong Zhi Kang Clement sued Cheng Yi Han, Ling Hui Andrew, Providence Asset Management, Then Feng, and Lee Moon Young. The plaintiffs sought to amend the writ by adding Lee Moon Young as a party and amending the statement of claim to include allegations of dishonest assistance and conspiracy. The court granted leave to amend the writ to join Lee Moon Young as a party and to make amendments to the statement of claim relating to her joinder, but refused leave to add three new causes of action against Then Feng.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Singapore International Commercial Court1.2 Outcome
Micro Tellers’ case against Feng based on deceit and breach of trust/fiduciary duty succeeds. The Regional Group’s case against Feng based on breach of trust/fiduciary duty succeeds. The plaintiffs’ claims against Moon in dishonest assistance and against Moon and Feng in conspiracy are dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Oral Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore case involving Micro Tellers, Cheng Yi Han, and others, concerning breach of trust, dishonest assistance, and conspiracy.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Micro Tellers Network Limited | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application granted in part | Partial | |
| Michael Lin Daoji | Plaintiff | Individual | Application granted in part | Partial | |
| Rio Lim Yong Chee | Plaintiff | Individual | Application granted in part | Partial | |
| Wong Zhi Kang Clement | Plaintiff | Individual | Application granted in part | Partial | |
| Cheng Yi Han (Zhong Yihan) | Defendant | Individual | Not Applicable | Neutral | |
| Ling Hui Andrew | Defendant | Individual | Not Applicable | Neutral | |
| Providence Asset Management | Defendant | Corporation | Not Applicable | Neutral | |
| Then Feng | Defendant | Individual | Application granted in part | Partial | Then Feng of Independent Practitioner |
| Lee Moon Young | Defendant | Individual | Application granted | Other |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Simon Thorley | International Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs sought to amend the writ to add Lee Moon Young as a defendant.
- Plaintiffs sought to amend the statement of claim to include allegations of dishonest assistance and conspiracy against Lee Moon Young.
- Plaintiffs sought to add new causes of action against Then Feng.
- Lee Moon Young was previously a defendant in Suit 8, but the action against her was discontinued.
- The court had to consider whether the proposed amendments disclosed a reasonable cause of action.
5. Formal Citations
- The Micro Tellers Network Limited and others v Cheng Yi Han (Zhong Yihan) and others, , SIC/S 5/2020 (SIC/SUM 6/2022)
- The Micro Tellers Network Ltd and others v Cheng Yi Han and others and another suit, , [2021] 5 SLR 328
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Trial of Suit 5 began | |
| Judgment given in Suit 8 | |
| Action against Lee Moon Young discontinued in Suit 8 | |
| Application to join Lee Moon Young as a defendant allowed |
7. Legal Issues
- Joinder of Parties
- Outcome: The court granted leave to amend the writ to join Lee Moon Young as a party.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Requirements for joinder
- Discretion of the court
- Necessity and convenience
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court granted leave to make amendments to the statement of claim relating to Lee Moon Young's joinder, but refused leave to add three new causes of action against Then Feng.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Leave of court
- Reasonable cause of action
- Abuse of process
8. Remedies Sought
- Amendment of Writ
- Amendment of Statement of Claim
- Joinder of Party
9. Cause of Actions
- Dishonest Assistance
- Conspiracy
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Shiyam v Tuff Offshore Engineering Services Pte Ltd | Not Available | Yes | [2021] 5 SLR 188 | Singapore | Considers the application of the Rules of Court, including O 15 r 4 and O 15 r 6, in the context of joinder of parties. |
| Ernest Ferdinand Perez De La Sala v Compañia De Navegación, SA and others and other appeals | Not Available | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 894 | Singapore | Explains the non-discretionary and discretionary elements of O 15 r 6(2) regarding joinder of parties. |
| Lim Yong Swan v Lim Jee Tee and another | Not Available | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 940 | Singapore | States that whether to allow amendment does not involve an examination of the merits of the applicant’s case, beyond whether it is bound to fail or (perhaps) bound to succeed. |
| Jeyaretnam Joshua Benjamin v Lee Kuan Yew | Not Available | Yes | [1990] 1 SLR(R) 337 | Singapore | States that the principles to be applied in the context of O 20 r 5 are similar to those for striking out pleadings under O 18 r 19 of the ROC. |
| Wright Norman and another v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd | Not Available | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 640 | Singapore | States that the principles to be applied in the context of O 20 r 5 are similar to those for striking out pleadings under O 18 r 19 of the ROC. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others | Not Available | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Defines a reasonable cause of action as one which has some chance of success when only the allegations in the pleading are considered. |
| Oh Bernard v Six Capital Investments Ltd (in liquidation) and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 42 | Singapore | States that if the requirements of O 15 r 4(1) are satisfied, the plaintiff is entitled to join the multiple defendants. |
| Tan Yow Kon v Tan Swat Ping and others | Not Available | Yes | [2006] 3 SLR(R) 881 | Singapore | Recognizes that O 15 r 6 stands in relation to parties as O 20 stands in relation to the amendment of pleadings. |
| Lee Bee Eng v Cheng William | Not Available | Yes | [2021] 3 SLR 968 | Singapore | Declined to find that the case was “so hopeless that it [failed] to withstand basic scrutiny”. |
| Alliance Entertainment Singapore Pte Ltd v Sim Kay Teck and another | Not Available | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 869 | Singapore | States that the court will not allow joinder where the pleaded case is doomed or plainly unsustainable. |
| Von Roll Asia Pte Ltd v Goh Boon Gay and others | Not Available | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1053 | Singapore | Sets out the four elements of the cause of action of dishonest assistance. |
| Barlow Clowes International Ltd (in liquidation) and others v Eurotrust International Ltd | Not Available | Yes | [2006] 1 WLR 1476 | England | Explains the requirements for dishonest assistance, including the need for a dishonest state of mind. |
| Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 2 AC 164 | England | States that someone can know, and can certainly suspect, that he is assisting in a misappropriation of money without knowing that the money is held on trust or what a trust means. |
| Group Seven Ltd and another v Nasir and others | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2019] EWCA Civ 614 | England | Authority on dishonest assistance. |
| George Raymond Zage III v Ho Chi Kwong | Not Available | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 589 | Singapore | Clarifies that the standard of what constitutes honest conduct is an objective one. |
| O’Laughlin Industries Co Ltd and another v Tan Thiam Hock and others | Singapore High Court | Yes | [2021] SGHC 35 | Singapore | Illustrates a case where a director was not found liable for dishonest assistance due to lack of involvement and knowledge. |
| Kuwait Oil Tanker Co SAK v AL Bader (No 3) | Not Available | Yes | [2000] 2 All ER (Comm) 271 | England | States that for a conspiracy claim to succeed, both parties must be sufficiently aware of the surrounding circumstances and share the object for it properly to be said that they were acting in concert. |
| EFT Holdings, Inc v Marinteknik Shipbuilders (S) Pte Ltd | Not Available | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 860 | Singapore | States that for a conspiracy claim to succeed, both parties must be sufficiently aware of the surrounding circumstances and share the object for it properly to be said that they were acting in concert. |
| Hubbuck v Wilkinson | Not Available | Yes | [1999] 1 Q.B. 86 | England | States that it is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had from the summary of process under this rule. |
| Mayor, etc., of the City of London v. Horner | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [1914] 111 L.T. 512 | England | States that it is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had from the summary of process under this rule. |
| Resources Mining Pte. Ltd. v Puteh bte Abdullah & Ors | Not Available | Yes | [1989] 3 M.L.J. 393 | Malaysia | States that it is only in plain and obvious cases that recourse should be had from the summary of process under this rule. |
| Kemsley v. Foot | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [1951] 2 K.B. 34 | England | States that the claim must be obviously unsustainable, the pleadings unarguably bad and it must be impossible, not just improbable, for the claim to succeed before the court will strike it out. |
| Kemsley v. Foot | House of Lords | Yes | [1952] A.C. 345 | England | States that the claim must be obviously unsustainable, the pleadings unarguably bad and it must be impossible, not just improbable, for the claim to succeed before the court will strike it out. |
| Wong Sai Tack v. Chien Hon Keong | Not Available | Yes | [2000] 5 M.L.J. 74 | Malaysia | States that the claim must be obviously unsustainable, the pleadings unarguably bad and it must be impossible, not just improbable, for the claim to succeed before the court will strike it out. |
| Wenlock v. Moloney | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [1965] 1 W.L.R. 1238 | England | States that it cannot be exercised by a minute and protracted examination of the documents and facts of the case in order to see whether the plaintiff really has a cause of action. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Order 15 Rule 4(1) Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 110 Rule 9(1) Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 20 Rule 5(1) Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 110 Rule 3(1) Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 15 Rule 6 Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Order 18 Rule 19 Rules of Court | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Joinder
- Amendment
- Dishonest Assistance
- Conspiracy
- Reasonable Cause of Action
- Abuse of Process
- Leave of Court
- Pleadings
15.2 Keywords
- Amendment
- Joinder
- Civil Procedure
- Singapore
- Rules of Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Fraud and Deceit | 70 |
| Fiduciary Duties | 70 |
| Misrepresentation | 70 |
| Agency Law | 70 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Negligence | 60 |
| Conspiracy by Unlawful Means | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Joinder of Parties