YONG KHONG YOONG MARK & 2 Ors v TING CHOON MENG & Anor

YONG KHONG YOONG MARK & 2 Ors v TING CHOON MENG & Anor

Court found only the regulatory representation (that final BPro G2 had worldwide approvals) was made and was factually inaccurate, but plaintiffs failed to prove they relied on any of the representations when making loans or entering the Subscription Agreement because extensive due diligence and internal arrangements (including appointment of plaintiffs' nominee CEO) alerted them to the true regulatory and contractual position; consequently misrepresentation (fraudulent or negligent), statutory misrepresentation under s2(1), and unlawful means conspiracy claims all fail; costs awarded to defendants.

Citation
[2021] SGHC 246
Parties
First Plaintiff: Yong Khong Yoong Mark; Second Plaintiff: Emily Hwang Mei Chen; Third Plaintiff: Medivice Investment Limited; First Defendant: Ting Choon Meng; Second Defendant: Chua Ngak Hwee
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
29 October 2021
Case Number
HC/S 1140/2018 ( HC/SUM 1976/2021,HC/SUM 2330/2021,HC/SUM 1688/2021,HC/SUM 1975/2021 )
Procedural Posture
Civil Suit for Misrepresentation and Conspiracy (contract and Tort) / Judgment After Trial in General Division of High Court
Outcome
Plaintiffs' claims dismissed in their entirety; costs awarded to defendants
Legal Topics
Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Misrepresentation Act S2(1), Unlawful Means Conspiracy, Admissibility of Hearsay, Inducement and Reliance, Due Diligence, Regulatory Approvals (fda/cfda/ce/hsa)
Source Language
English
Contract Tort Evidence Fraudulent Misrepresentation Negligent Misrepresentation Misrepresentation Act S2(1) Unlawful Means Conspiracy Admissibility of Hearsay +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Yong Khong Yoong Mark

First Plaintiff

Emily Hwang Mei Chen

Second Plaintiff

Medivice Investment Limited

Third Plaintiff

Ting Choon Meng

First Defendant

Chua Ngak Hwee

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Suit for Misrepresentation and Conspiracy (contract and Tort) / Judgment After Trial in General Division of High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Were the alleged representations made by the defendants?
  2. 2 If made, were they false representations of existing or past fact?
  3. 3 Did the plaintiffs rely on the representations in making loans and entering the Subscription Agreement?

Ratio Decidendi

Court found only the regulatory representation (that final BPro G2 had worldwide approvals) was made and was factually inaccurate, but plaintiffs failed to prove they relied on any of the representations when making loans or entering the Subscription Agreement because extensive due diligence and internal arrangements (including appointment of plaintiffs' nominee CEO) alerted them to the true regulatory and contractual position; consequently misrepresentation (fraudulent or negligent), statutory misrepresentation under s2(1), and unlawful means conspiracy claims all fail; costs awarded to defendants.

Court Disposition

Plaintiffs' claims dismissed in their entirety; costs awarded to defendants

Orders

  • Judgment dismissing all claims of the plaintiffs against the defendants
  • Costs to be paid by the plaintiffs to the defendants, to be taxed if not agreed