Lim Chong Teck v Wendy Kwek

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Tan May Tee
• Judgment Date: 25 September 2023
• Neutral Citation: [2023] SGDC 222
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: District Court Suit No 637 of 2021
• Hearing Date: 09 May 2023,06 February 2023,07 February 2023,08 February 2023,10 February 2023
• Citation: [2023] SGDC 222
• Year: 2023
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jerie Tan Qiu Lin and Adorabelle Tan (K&L Gates Straits Law LLC)
• Defendant Counsel: Oei Ai Hoea Anna (Tan Oei & Oei LLC)
• Subject Matter: Contract,implied terms,Tort,Negligence,Breach of duty,Misrepresentation,Negligent misrepresentation
• Published date: 04 October 2023

District Judge Tan May Tee: Introduction

This suit started in the High Court with 85 plaintiffs. They were all investors who had bought units in a property known as the Tillington Hall Hotel, Eccleshall Road, Stafford, United Kingdom (“Tillington Hotel”) at a series of property exhibitions in Singapore in 2013, and suffered losses as a result.

The Tillington Hotel project was introduced to the investors by the defendant whom they claimed made various representations to them on its profitability which turned out to be untrue. The project was a failure and the Tillington Hotel was eventually sold at a loss in 2021. The plaintiffs had sought to recoup their losses from the defendant.

84 out of the 85 plaintiffs withdrew their claims in the High Court leaving only the fifth plaintiff, Dr Lim Chong Teck. As his claim is below $250,000, the matter was then transferred to the District Court for trial. Since he is the sole remaining plaintiff, the fifth plaintiff will simply be referred to as the plaintiff.

Background

The defendant, Wendy Kwek, is said to be a well-known and highly regarded property advisor and investor who had invested in more than 100 properties across various continents. Her investments spanned from the Asia Pacific to United States of America, Europe and Latin America. Her property portfolio encompassed private residential and commercial properties such as condominiums, mixed development SOHO units, landed properties, commercial properties including shophouses, retail units, food and beverage outlets, offices, light and heavy industrial properties, medical suites and hotel investments.¹

The defendant had also set up and was a director of a number of companies which were in the business of organising seminars and courses relating to investment and wealth creation through property, one of which was WK Events Pte Ltd. In the course of running her business, the defendant had held herself out as a registered agent with the Council for Estate Agencies (“CEA”) under Real Centre Consultants Pte Ltd.²

Sometime in January 2013, the plaintiff, who is a practising doctor and Ear, Nose and Throat (“ENT”) specialist, came across an advertisement in a local newspaper advertising a free two-hour “Property Riches Seminar” which was to be conducted by the defendant who was identified therein as “Ms Wendy Kwek, Spirit of Enterprise Awardee 2004”.³

The plaintiff who regarded himself as someone with “zero knowledge when it comes to property investment” ⁴ registered for and attended the free seminar on or around 20 January 2013. It was organised under WK Events Pte Ltd and featured the defendant as the face of the seminar.

Throughout the seminar, the defendant portrayed herself as an astute business owner and property investor with significant experience and success in advising others on investment properties as well as in her personal investments. During the seminar, which lasted for about two hours, the defendant touched on various aspects of property investment, including amongst others⁵– how savvy investors have been accumulating millions in the property market; how average people can also become rich by taking the right action; the types of properties that have been giving good returns to investors; how to be a street-smart investor by being in a powerful investment network; and how to identify good investment opportunities locally and internationally.

The Property Riches Program

At the free seminar, the defendant encouraged all the attendees to sign up for a subsequent two and a half-day course called the “Property Riches Program” (“PRP”) which cost $2,995. The attendees, including the plaintiff, received a four-page brochure of the PRP which had the following statements on its cover page:⁶

Discover the Secrets To Making Millions in Properties!

How YOU Can Become RICH Through Property Investments!

The mission statement of the PRP was also set out on the cover page thus:

Our Mission Is To Help Average People Create Extraordinary Wealth Through Property Investments.

On the second page of the brochure, there was a description of the course content in bullet points which set out what intended participants could expect to learn within the “21/2 Days Power-Packed Property Riches Program”. Notably, the penultimate item was stated as:

“Find out How To Tap Into A Powerful Property Investor Network And Get Straight Into Collaborative Deals”

On the third page of the PRP brochure, there was a series of seven “Q & A” items, the more significant ones are copied below:⁷

According to the plaintiff, the defendant informed the attendees that if they signed up for the PRP, they would, as a matter of course, become members of her investment network, which was then named as the WK Investment Network. These members would be offered exclusive investment opportunities that the defendant had personally sourced and assessed using her tried-and-tested investment methods and principles.⁸

Further, the defendant had given him the impression that that she was personally responsible for running the PRP. The plaintiff understood that the “WK” in the investment network and the various entities associated with the PRP were the defendant’s initials.⁹

It was not disputed that the defendant had been using this business model for some years, previously under another company called Executive Directions Pte Ltd. In essence, the modus operandi was to organise free seminars targeted at unsophisticated investors. The attendees would then be invited to enrol for the PRP at a cost of $2,995. Graduates from each PRP cohort would as a matter of course be invited to join her investment network. The defendant’s PRP courses were reportedly well attended with 250 to 400 enrolled each time. Since 2012, the defendant had reportedly run the PRP three to four times a year.¹⁰

The plaintiff signed up for the PRP at the 20 January 2013 free seminar itself. He then attended the 21/2 Day PRP conducted from 22 to 24 March 2013.

As recounted by the plaintiff, during the PRP, the defendant verbally assured the participants that:¹¹ She would look into and source for undervalued properties with considerable growth potential on their behalf; She would negotiate with the property developers for large discounts on their behalf and on the basis that they would be purchasing such properties in bulk; and She would hold on to the property investments with them and eventually lead them to sell the investments at a profit.

After the plaintiff had completed the PRP on 24 March 2013, he received an email from WK Events Pte Ltd on 3 April 2013 welcoming him into the WK Investment Network. Some days later, he also received an email informing him that he had been connected to the “WKinvestmentnetwork” group at Yahoo! Groups.¹²

The defendant promotes the Tillington Hotel project to the WK Investment Network

On 17 July 2013, the defendant sent an email to the WK Investment Network to introduce an investment opportunity related to the Tillington Hotel. The salient parts of the email are as follows:¹³

Dear Investors,

We are pleased to share with you an undervalued, profitable and hassle free investment deal.

I have personally traveled to UK to view and assess the investment opportunity at Stafford. I have also met the people running the hotel. This is an existing profitable hotel but the previous owner went into receivership due to his other financial commitments. The current yield is 7% NETT without brand name and with Best Western brand coming in, the yields are likely to be pushed up higher over the next few years to 10-15% per yield NETT.

Key Points:- - 999 yr Leasehold - Undervalued - Immediate yield for buyers - Hands free approach as it is a fully managed investment - Hotel Operator – First Hospitality - Hotel Brand – Best Western - Price around GBP 50K – GBP58K

Pls do come down to the briefing session where the developer will be here to share. For this sharing, WK members can bring referrals – 2% referral fees upon successful application.

Date: 22 July 2013

Time: 1230pm or 730pm sharing sessions.

Pls RSVP at http://bit.ly/10Z18Xl

Cheers,

Wendy Kwek

CEA Reg No R0498781

Real Centre Consultants Pte Ltd, Remax

Agency Licence No: L3010432C

Organised by : WK Events Pte Ltd

…

The defendant sent a follow-up email to the WK Investment Network on 27 July 2013 along the same lines as the 17 July 2013 email (collectively referred to as the “Tillington Introduction Emails”) to invite those who had missed the earlier briefing to attend an upcoming one on 31 July 2013.¹⁴

There were several briefing sessions or exhibitions on the Tillington Hotel project in July and August 2013. The plaintiff attended three of them, namely on 22 July 2013, 25 July 2013 and the third on 31 July 2013. There was a large turnout at each of these sessions. ¹⁵

According to the plaintiff, at each exhibition, the defendant would start by giving a Powerpoint presentation to introduce the Tillington Hotel which included photographs of her visiting the hotel. She would inform the audience orally and/or by way of her PowerPoint presentation that the Tillington Hotel was a good investment opportunity – it was undervalued, the 999-year commercial title was “almost like” a freehold property, the investors would obtain title deeds for each unit purchased and the investment would be “hassle free and fully managed”.¹⁶

The defendant orally assured the attendees that she had done all relevant and necessary due diligence and had independently assessed the Tillington Hotel investment project. She also verbally informed the attendees that: ¹⁷ The investment project would yield returns of at least 7% in the first year and the returns would increase progressively each year. By about the sixth or seventh year, the investment project would yield returns of about 14%. At this time, she...