Tat Lee Securities Pte Ltd v Tsang Tsang Kwong and another action

JurisdictionSingapore
CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
JudgeChao Hick Tin JA
Plaintiff CounselWoo Bih Li and Tan Hui Teng (Bih Li & Lee)
Subject MatterWhether summary procedure appropriate,Securities,Summary judgment,Financial and Securities Markets,Whether stockbroker liable for remisier's fraudulent misappropriation of client's shares,Civil Procedure,Whether respondents' claims should be dismissed,Whether liability can be determined by construction of client's letter of authority,O 14 r 12 Rules of Court 1996,Whether liable under agency law or negligence,Construction of letter of authority
Docket NumberCivil Appeals Nos 50 and 51
Defendant CounselHarry Wee and Leong Why Kong (Braddell Brothers)
Published date19 September 2003
Date23 October 1999

(delivering the judgment of the court): These two appeals arise from a judgment of the High Court setting aside a decision of the deputy registrar who granted an order striking out the claim of the plaintiffs-respondents made in two separate actions, in terms of two similar applications made by the appellant-defendant under O 14 r 12 of the Rules of Court 1996.

The facts

The appellant is a firm of stockbrokers. The respondents in both appeals (the plaintiffs in the actions below) were clients of the appellant. The respondents dealt with Koh Lik Jin (Koh), a remisier in the firm. At the time when they opened their trading accounts with the appellant, each of the respondents had also executed a letter of authority (LA). As the contents of this LA is central to the actions and the appeals, we shall set it out in full:

Dear Sirs

Re: (1) SES Bye-Law III, Clause 11:

Communication through/to third party

- Para (a) - ADDRESSING & MAILING

Communication through/to third party

- Para (b) - TAKING DELIVERY

(2) CHEQUE OFFSETTING

[lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar][lowbar]

(1) I hereby authorise you to release:

Debit Notes

Credit Notes

Statement of Accounts

Scrips

to the undersigned Dealer/Remisier ... (Koh) ... for transactions executed on my account.

(2) I hereby authorise the undersigned Dealer/Remisier/and/or/the abovenamed to take delivery on my cheque(s) which is/are due to me from the proceeds of my sales(s) and contra gain(s) and that the said cheque(s) is/are to be used for the purpose of offsetting against the amount which may arise from time to time due to you for my purchase(s) and contra loss(es) and interest payable out of my share transactions with you.

In consideration of the above, I will not hold you, your directors, and/or officers responsible for any losses that may result therefrom.

This letter of authority will remain in force until your receipt of a notice of revocation in writing from me.



The respondents averred that by virtue of the bye-laws of the Stock Exchange of Singapore (SES), Koh was an agent of the appellant. Clause 1(a) of bye-law V of SES provides that a remisier is an agent of his stockbroking firm and cl 3(b) provides that:

Every remisier shall, upon appointment by a Member Company enter into an agency agreement with the Member Company, as principal. Such agreement must embody the main substance of the standard agreement at appendix VA.



Shares were purchased on the respondents` behalf by Koh. The scrips of the shares bought were kept in the appellant`s custody. Koh subsequently obtained delivery of the scrips of some of the shares bought by the respondents through him and sold those shares off without the knowledge of the respondents through...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • United Overseas Bank Ltd v Lippo Marina Collection Pte Ltd and others
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 22 February 2016
    ...Pte Ltd v Standard Chartered Bank [2003] 1 SLR(R) 597 (“Beam”) and Tat Lee Securities Pte Ltd v Tsang Tsang Kwong and another action [1999] 3 SLR(R) 692 (“Tat Lee”) raised by the Defendants distinguishable from the present case. In Beam, the Court of Appeal held that the question posed by t......
  • Motor Insurers' Bureau of Singapore and another v AM General Insurance Bhd (formerly known as Kurnia Insurans (Malaysia) Bhd) (Liew Voon Fah, third party)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 23 February 2018
    ...ha[d] become apparent’ warranted a full trial in that case. As this court pointed out in Tat Lee Securities Pte Ltd v Tsang Tsang Kwong[1999] 3 SLR(R) 692, the O 14 r 12 procedure is not appropriate where the law relating to the issues in dispute is unclear and more evidence is needed befor......
  • Obegi Melissa and Others v Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and Another
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 28 January 2008
    ...ha[d] become apparent” warranted a full trial in that case. As this court pointed out in Tat Lee Securities Pte Ltd v Tsang Tsang Kwong [2000] 1 SLR 1, the O 14 r 12 procedure is not appropriate where the law relating to the issues in dispute is unclear and more evidence is needed before th......
  • Garden Hub Pte Ltd v Attorney-General
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 31 January 2012
    ...become apparent" warranted a full trial in that case. As this court pointed out in Tat Lee Securities Pte Ltd v Tsang Tsang Kwong [1999] 3 SLR(R) 692, the O 14 r 12 procedure is not appropriate where the law relating to the issues in dispute is unclear and more evidence is needed before tho......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT