United Overseas Finance Ltd v Yew Siew Kien

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 18 June 1993
• Neutral Citation: [1993] SGHC 135
• Date: 18 June 1993
• Subject Matter: Signature of proprietor on instrument of mortgage a forgery,Whether mortgage a nullity,Credit and Security,Creation,Mortgage created without registered proprietor's knowledge or consent,Forgery committed by solicitor acting as agent of finance company,Fraud or forgery,Mortgage of real property,s 38 Land Titles Act (Cap 157),Whether finance company entitled to maintain suit against proprietor for repayment of loan secured by mortgage
• Docket Number: Suit No 600 of 1989
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: S Balasubramaniam (S Bala & Associates)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Benedict Vijayan Peter (with Chee Chuen Yee) (Ramdas & Wong)

Cur Adv Vult

The plaintiffs are a finance company. To promote their finance business the plaintiffs had a standing arrangement with some solicitors, including one John Andrew Wong, whereby the plaintiffs would instruct them to act for the plaintiffs in mortgages in respect of loans applied for through these solicitors. PW1 Peter Ong Khong Leng, the manager of the plaintiffs` Middle Road Branch said at p 3 of the notes of evidence:

... We had prior dealings with JA Wong. We left with him a few [loan application] forms at a time. I had known JA Wong since 1982. I had previous business dealings with him. In those dealings JA Wong acted for us as well as for the mortgagor. Occasionally he acted for us, without acting for the mortgagor in the same transaction. In 1985, I had known him for several years. He was previously the OC of Beach Road, trained overseas. He was a superintendent before he resigned from police service. With all these knowledge of his background I had no reason to doubt his integrity.

The defendant is the owner and registered proprietor of an apartment known as No 127-B West Coast Park, Singapore. The apartment was purchased for him by his father in or around November 1980. John Andrew Wong, then practising as JA Wong & Co acted for the defendant on the instructions of his father. At that time the defendant was 19 years old. After the transfer in the defendant`s favour had been duly registered, the subsidiary strata certificate of title (`SSCT`) was not released by John Andrew Wong to the defendant`s father in spite of repeated requests.

On 17 September 1985 the plaintiffs received a loan application through John Andrew Wong. It purported to be an application from the defendant for a loan of $220,000 repayable over 20 years to be secured by a mortgage of the apartment. The application was approved within two days for $165,000 repayable by 180 monthly payments of $1,706 each. No verification of the identity and personal particulars of the defendant was done because the plaintiffs relied on the integrity of John Andrew Wong. It transpired that some of the particulars were incorrect. The acceptance copy of the letter of approval submitted through John Andrew Wong was also purportedly signed by the defendant. Following the approval of the loan application, the plaintiffs on 1 October 1985 instructed John Andrew Wong to act for them in the mortgage. The instrument of mortgage prepared by John Andrew Wong and purportedly executed by the defendant was forwarded to the plaintiff on 2 December 1985 with request for release of the loan. The loan was released on 6 December 1985 to John Andrew Wong as solicitor for the plaintiffs by cheque drawn in favour of the firm of JA Wong & Co. The address of all communications to or purportedly from the defendant was c/o 101 Upper Cross Street #05-41, People`s Park Centre, Singapore 0105 which was the office address of John Andrew Wong.

After the release of the loan of $165,000, 21 monthly payments were made. The receipts for these payments were again addressed to the defendant c/o John Andrew Wong`s office. The last payment was made on or about 10 September 1987 for the September 1987 instalment and overdue interest. It transpired that the signatures on the application for loan, the acceptance letter for the loan and the instrument of mortgage were forgeries perpetrated by John Andrew Wong who also attested the signature on the instrument of mortgage. It also transpired that the monthly payments too were made by John Andrew Wong through his Tat Lee Bank account.

The forgery came to light when after the death of his father on 2 April 1986 the defendant could not locate the SSCT. He then called on John Andrew Wong who eventually admitted in or around February 1987 that the `SSCT had been mortgaged` by him. This led to the defendant making a report to the Officer-in-Charge, Commercial Crime Division of the Criminal Investigation Department on 2 November 1987. The report read:

Re: Complaint against my solicitor Mr Andrew JA Wong

In 1980, my deceased father instructed the firm of John Andrew Wong to act in the purchase of a property at 127-B West Coast Park, Singapore in my name. The property was paid for in full with no instructions to my solicitor to obtain a loan or financing from any finance company.

After the property was purchased, my father persistently asked Andrew Wong for the title and Andrew Wong lied to my father that title has not been issued and as soon as issued will be handed over. During the last few months while sorting out my father`s estate matters, I became increasingly impatient with Andrew Wong and pressed him to hand over to me the title deeds. When I began to be unhappy and threatened to ask another solicitor to take over the matter, Mr Andrew Wong admitted to me that he had mortgaged the property (without my consent or knowledge) to his client, United Overseas Finance Ltd. He asked me to help him to give him time to redeem the property. I immediately caused a search to be made and found that my property was indeed mortgaged to United Overseas Finance Ltd without my knowledge or participation. On obtaining copies of the mortgage documents, I found my signature on the mortgage was also forged. I therefore consulted members of my family and on

16 September 1987 I wrote to Mr Andrew Wong asking him to remedy the situation within 48 hours. From 16 September 1987 to now, Mr Wong has been talking to me and my father`s friends trying to ask me to give him a chance to slowly repay to the bank.

As I have been advised that what has been done is a criminal act that must be reported to the police, I accordingly officially lodge a complaint against John Andrew Wong and shall be grateful if you will kindly take steps to assist me herein. In this regards, I enclose herewith the following:

(a) photocopy of the Subsidiary Strata Certificate of Title Volume 53 Folio 36;

(b) photocopy of the transfer document;

(c) photocopy of the mortgage document;

(d) photocopy of my letter dated 16 September 1987.

As there is a likelihood that Mr Wong may abscond, I trust your authorities will take immediate steps to interview him on the facts surrounding my case.

Yours faithfully

Sgd: Yew Siew Kien

A copy of the report was sent to the Law Society.

On the same day, the defendant through his solicitors S Rajagopal & Co wrote to the plaintiffs as follows:

Re: A/c Yew Siew Kien

127-B West Coast Park, Singapore

We act for Mr Yew Siew Kien, owner of the above-captioned property.

Our client has instructed us that his said property has been mortgaged by John Andrew Wong of M/s JA Wong & Co to you without his consent, authorization and instructions. In the premises, our client say that the mortgage of his property is bad in law and hereby give you notice of the same. Kindly confirm that you shall take steps to retransfer the property to our client within seven (7) days from the date hereof failing which, we have our client`s instructions to apply to court for a court order declaring that the mortgage is null and void in law and requiring you to retransfer the same to our client.

Kindly note that for all intents and purposes, the firm of M/s JA Wong & Co was acting as your agents and lawyers and our client had absolutely no knowledge of the mortgage or any form of borrowing secured by his property until recently. Needless to say our client has made the necessary reports with the police and the Law Society of Singapore.

The plaintiffs replied through their solicitors Ramdas & Wong as follows:

We act for United Overseas Finance Ltd who have handed us a copy of your letter of 2 November 1987 with instructions to reply thereto.

As your client has lodged reports with both the police and the Law Society of Singapore, we trust that you agree with us that our clients should await the outcome of investigations before taking any further steps in this matter.

Kindly keep us informed of any developments in the investigations. Our clients are naturally concerned with your client`s allegations but your client`s proposals would be premature at this state.

The question of whether M/s JA Wong & Co was our clients` agent or your client`s agent or the agent of both is a matter that can only be resolved after investigation.

We trust that you will withhold the action contemplated in para 2 of your letter for the moment as this would incur costs unnecessarily.

Pursuant to the complaint, the Law Society instituted disciplinary proceedings against John Andrew Wong. One of the charges formulated in the Law Society`s amended statement of the case against him read:

You, Mr John Andrew Wong, an advocate and solicitor are charged that sometime in December September (sic) 1985 you did arrange or caused to be arranged a loan with the United Overseas Finance Ltd purportedly for one Yew Siew Kien by using the

...