Lee Mei Lan v Derrick Ng Jing Yuan

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Jasmin Kaur
• Judgment Date: 21 May 2024
• Neutral Citation: [2024] SGDC 122
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 332 of 2021
• Hearing Date: 21 May 2024,05 March 2024,17 January 2024,18 January 2024
• Citation: [2024] SGDC 122
• Year: 2024
• Plaintiff Counsel: Hsu Sheng Wei, Keith & Nico Lee Yin Hao (Emerald Law LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Tan Cheng Kiong (CK Tan Law Corporation)
• Published date: 30 May 2024

District Judge Jasmin Kaur: Introduction

The plaintiff, Lee Mei Lan, met the defendant, Derrick Ng Jing Yuan, in 2008, and believed she was in a romantic relationship with him from about 2010 to 2020. From 2014, the plaintiff began to transfer sums of money to the defendant on a weekly basis, as she had been given to believe that the defendant’s father was very ill and that the defendant was in financial difficulty arising from his father’s medical bills. She also believed that she and the defendant were in a genuine relationship and would eventually get married, and that he would repay her money. In 2020, after she had transferred about $212,950 to the defendant, the plaintiff discovered that the defendant had been lying to her and enjoying a lavish lifestyle, suggesting that he was not in debt. The plaintiff then initiated this suit to recover her money.

The parties’ cases Plaintiff’s case

The plaintiff states that the defendant made certain representations repeatedly, both orally and in writing, from 2014 to 2020, that she relied on when she gave money to the defendant: That the defendant’s father was sick and the defendant’s siblings did not help with the defendant’s father’s medical bills (the “First Representation”); That the defendant was in financial difficulty and had debts which arose from his father’s medical bills (the “Second Representation”); and That the defendant would repay the plaintiff in due course (the “Third Representation”).

The defendant also conducted himself such that he made the plaintiff believe that they were in a romantic relationship and they would likely be married in the future. They went on dates, they talked about purchasing a matrimonial home, sharing of housework, cooking, having babies, and the defendant referred to them as “man and wife” and that they would be together “till death do us apart [sic]” (“the Conduct”).

The plaintiff started giving cash of about $650 a week to the defendant in 2014 as the defendant had left his job as an insurance agent and he needed money to pay his father’s medical bills. The plaintiff did so as she thought that he would be her future husband and that the money was needed to save her future father-in-law. At that point, the plaintiff’s salary was only about $3,000 a month and so these transfers consisted of almost her entire income.

As time went on, the defendant started asking for more money from the plaintiff. He would also ask the plaintiff to pay for his shopping expenses.¹

The plaintiff started becoming suspicious of the defendant over the course of the relationship as he appeared to make excuses whenever she mentioned that she wanted to meet his family and friends. He also did not allow her to contact him via WhatsApp, citing the reason that his colleagues may see his WhatsApp messages because he used WhatsApp Web on his office desktop.²

In August 2019, the plaintiff’s mother, who did not know that the plaintiff was giving money to the defendant, noticed that the plaintiff’s savings were dwindling. The plaintiff’s mother then locked away the plaintiff’s savings so that the plaintiff could apply the money towards a HDB flat. When the plaintiff told the defendant that she could not transfer money to him anymore, the defendant’s attitude towards her began to change. He began to treat her coldly and would no longer go out with her or text her unless it was to ask for money.

In November 2020, the plaintiff engaged a private investigator (“PI”) to conduct a background check on the defendant. From the PI report, she learnt that the defendant worked for his cousin’s company, he was the sole owner of a HDB unit which was well renovated, where he was living with another woman and they appeared to be a couple. The PI report also stated that the defendant did not appear to have any financial problems. The plaintiff then realised that the defendant had been deceiving her for years.

Defendant’s case

The defendant does not deny the Conduct and making some of the oral representations, but states that they were not fraudulent. He maintains that the relationship was genuine and that the plaintiff was his only girlfriend during the material time, although they were not intimate. He states that all the monies given by the plaintiff were gifts given voluntarily by her whenever he had financial difficulties. He had told her that he needed the money for both his father’s and his mother’s medical bills and that he had other financial issues as he had borrowed money from moneylenders as well. The plaintiff had never asked him for repayment and it was only when they ended the relationship that she asked for her money back and initiated this lawsuit.

In closing submissions, the defendant took the position that the interactions between the parties became strained in 2020 and 2021 because of the Covid-19 pandemic, and this led to the breakdown of the relationship.³. The defendant referred to the plaintiff as a jilted lover who was upset when he said that he was not ready for marriage as he had many issues in his professional and personal life. She then demanded her money back.

The defendant admits to receiving money from the plaintiff but not the total sum of $212,850.

Transcripts of tele-conversations as evidence

It is prudent at this stage to deal with some transcripts containing translations from Chinese to English tendered in evidence by the plaintiff (“the Transcripts”). These are transcripts of tele-conversations between the plaintiff and the defendant which the plaintiff relied on to prove that the defendant made certain representations to her. The plaintiff asserted that these conversations were recorded unknowingly, and she only discovered them when she started looking for evidence for these proceedings. I found it difficult to believe that conversations can be recorded unknowingly, but there were no submissions made on any motive for the plaintiff to record these conversations for any purpose. Nonetheless, I found the plaintiff a credible witness apart from this oddity.

The defendant raised the objection that the Transcripts are undated and only certain choice portions had been tendered in evidence. During the defendant’s oral testimony, he insisted that the Transcripts do not contain the full picture and may have been taken out of context, but he did not dispute that these conversations did in fact take place.⁴ He also did not dispute the accuracy of the translation.

The objections are valid, but it does not follow that the Transcripts were then wholly unreliable and should be completely disregarded. The plaintiff stated that she did not request for the full audio files to be translated as these were many hours long and would be very expensive to translate. I accepted this explanation. The defendant had also never requested for the original audio files.⁵ Having been provided with the Transcripts even before Affidavits of Evidence in Chief (“AEICs”) were exchanged, the defendant was aware of the portions of conversations that the plaintiff was intending to rely on, and could have requested for the full audio files to extract those portions that revealed the purported full picture. He however chose not to do so and the only inference to be drawn is that the defendant knew there was nothing in their conversations that would provide the context he claimed there was.

As for the Transcripts being undated, I had given the plaintiff opportunities to provide the court with the dates from the metadata of the original audio recordings, but the plaintiff’s attempts to do so were unsatisfactory. I however noted that the defendant did not make any arguments in submissions that the dates of the conversations were important for context. In any event, I did not place much reliance on the Transcripts to come to my decision as the defendant accepted that he made particular representations to the plaintiff.

The plaintiff’s claims

The plaintiff’s claims against the defendant are as follows: The plaintiff is entitled to damages for the sum of $212,850 against the defendant for the tort of deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation; The defendant holds $212,850 on a constructive trust for the plaintiff; The defendant holds $212,850 on a resulting trust for the plaintiff; The defendant holds $212,850 on a Quistclose trust for the plaintiff; and The defendant is liable to the plaintiff in the sum of $212,850 in unjust enrichment.

Tort of deceit and fraudulent misrepresentation

There is no difference between the tort of deceit and tort of fraudulent misrepresentation: Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another [2001] SGCA 49 (“Panatron”). In Meow May Lan and others v Exclusiv Resorts Pte Ltd and another [2021] SGHC 155 (“Meow May Lan”) the High Court, in following Panatron, then set out the elements of the tort of deceit at [56]:

The essential elements of the tort of deceit are as follows. First, there had to be a representation of fact made by words or conduct. Second, the representation had to be made with the intention that it be acted upon by the plaintiff, or by a class of persons which included the plaintiff. Third, the plaintiff had acted upon the false statement. Fourth, the plaintiff suffered damage by doing so. Fifth, the representation had to be made with knowledge that it was false, either made wilfully or in the absence of any genuine belief that it was true.

Before analysing the evidence against each of these elements, it is important to in this case to start with who bears the burden to prove that the representations were false and how the plaintiff’s money was applied.

The burden of proof

The concepts of legal burden of proof and evidential burden of proof were outlined by the Court of Appeal in Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd [2007] 4SLR(R) 855 at [58] and [60]: 58 The term ‘burden of proof’ is more properly used with...