Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve

CourtCourt of Three Judges (Singapore)
Judgment Date28 June 2013
Date28 June 2013
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 140 of 2012

Court of Appeal

Chao Hick Tin JA


Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA


Tan Lee Meng J

Civil Appeal No 140 of 2012

Wee Chiaw Sek Anna
Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another

Hri Kumar Nair SC and Tan Sze Mei Angeline (Drew & Napier LLC) for theappellant

Deborah Barker SC and Ushan Premaratne (Khattar Wong LLP) for the firstrespondent

Edwin Tong, Tham Hsu Hsien, Nakul Dewan and Peh Aik Hin (Allen&Gledhill LLP) for the second respondent.

Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson [1990] Ch 265 (refd)

Agip (Africa) Ltd v Jackson [1991] Ch 547 (refd)

Ang Sin Hock v Khoo Eng Lim [2010] 3 SLR 179 (refd)

Angus v Clifford [1891] 2 Ch 449 (refd)

Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd v Akindele [2001] Ch437 (refd)

Baron Uno Carl Samuel Akerhielm v Rolf De Mare [1959] AC 789 (refd)

Beswick v Beswick [1968] AC 58 (refd)

Bradford Third Equitable Benefit Building Society v Borders [1941] 2 All ER 205 (refd)

Caltong (Australia) Pty Ltd v Tong Tien See Construction Pte Ltd [2002] 2 SLR (R) 94; [2002] 3 SLR 241 (refd)

Chan Teck Hock David v Leong Mei Chuan [2002] 1 SLR (R) 76; [2002] 1 SLR 177 (refd)

Charter plc v City Index Ltd [2008] Ch 313 (refd)

Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit [2001] 1 SLR (R) 856; [2001] 3 SLR 10 (refd)

Comboni Vincenzo v Shankar's Emporium (Pte) Ltd [2007] 2 SLR (R) 1020; [2007] 2 SLR 1020 (refd)

Criterion Properties plc v Stratford UK Properties LLC [2004] 1 WLR 1846 (refd)

Derry v Peek (1889) 14 App Cas 337 (refd)

Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group plc v IRC [2007] 1 AC 558 (refd)

Edgington v Fitzmaurice (1885) 29 Ch D 459 (refd)

Eco3 Capital Ltd v Ludsin Overseas Ltd [2013] EWCA Civ 413 (refd)

Eltraco International Pte Ltd v CGH Development Pte Ltd [2000] 3 SLR (R) 198; [2000] 4 SLR 290 (refd)

Farah Constructions Pty Ltd v Say-Dee Pty Ltd (2007) 230 CLR 89 (refd)

Fibrosa Spolka Akcyjna v Fairbairn Lawson Combe Barbour Ltd [1943] AC 32 (refd)

Food Co UK LLP v Henry Boot Developments Ltd [2010] EWHC 358 (Ch) (refd)

Fortex Group Ltd v Mac Intosh [1998] 3 NZLR 171 (refd)

Foskett v Mc Keown [2001] 1 AC 102 (refd)

Garcia v National Australia Bank Ltd (1998) 194 CLR 395 (refd)

George Raymond Zage III v Ho Chi Kwong [2010] 2 SLR 589 (refd)

Goose v Wilson Sandford&Co (No2) [2001] Lloyd's Rep PN 189 (refd)

Gordon v Selico Co Ltd [1986] 1 EGLR 71 (distd)

Jaffray v Society of Lloyd's [2002] EWCA Civ 1101 (refd)

JEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks, Bloom&Co [1983] 1 All ER 583 (refd)

John Mc Grath Motors (Canberra) Pty Ltd v Applebee (1964) 110 CLR 656 (refd)

Koh Cheong Heng v Ho Yee Fong [2011] 3 SLR 125 (distd)

Lim Ngeok Yuen v Lim Soon Heng Victor [2006] SGHC 83 (distd)

Lipkin Gorman v Karpnale Ltd [1991] 2 AC 548 (refd)

Muschinski v Dodds (1985) 160 CLR 583 (refd)

Ng Chee Chuan v Ng Ai Tee [2009] 2 SLR (R) 918; [2009] 2 SLR 918 (distd)

Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee [2001] 2 SLR (R) 435; [2001] 3 SLR 405 (refd)

Pettkus v Becker [1980] 2 SCR 834 (refd)

Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland Co [2007] 1 SLR (R) 196; [2007] 1 SLR 196 (refd)

Royal Brunei Airlines Sdn Bhd v Philip Tan Kok Ming [1995] 2 AC 378 (refd)

Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ) , Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2011] 3 SLR 540 (refd)

Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Citibank NA [1997] AC 254 (refd)

Soulos v Korkontzilas [1997] 2 SCR 217 (refd)

Tang Yoke Kheng v Lek Benedict [2005] 3 SLR (R) 263; [2005] 3 SLR 263 (refd)

Tat Seng Machine Movers Pte Ltd v Orix Leasing Singapore Ltd [2009] 4 SLR (R) 1101; [2009] 4 SLR 1101 (refd)

Thanakharn Kasikorn Thai Chamkat (Mahachon) v Akai Holdings Ltd (No2) (2010) 13 HKCFAR 479 (refd)

Twinsectra Ltd v Yardley [2002] 2 AC 164 (refd)

United Australia Ltd v Barclays Bank Ltd [1941] AC 1 (refd)

Uren v First National Home Finance Ltd [2005] EWHC 2529 (Ch) (refd)

Vita Health Laboratories Pte Ltd v Pang Seng Meng [2004] 4 SLR (R) 162; [2004] 4 SLR 162 (refd)

Wee Ah Lian v Teo Siak Weng [1992] 1 SLR (R) 347; [1992] 1 SLR 688 (refd)

Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669 (refd)

William Smith v David Chadwick (1884) 9 App Cas 187 (refd)

Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp [2008] 2 SLR (R) 909; [2008] 2 SLR 909 (refd)

Woolwich Equitable Building Society v IRC [1993] AC 70 (refd)

Yong Kheng Leong v Panweld Trading Pte Ltd [2013] 1 SLR 173 (refd)

Women's Charter (Cap353, 2009 Rev Ed) s112

Contract—Misrepresentation—Exaggeration—Husband stated in affidavit of assets that he would pay RM 1,200 in maintenance for each of his two children despite his financial position—Whether husband's statement was mere exaggeration or actionable misrepresentation

Contract—Misrepresentation—Fraudulent—Husband did not reveal earnings of more than US$25,000,000 to wife during marriage and divorce proceedings—Wife did not ask for division of assets—Whether husband fraudulently misrepresented his financial state to wife—Whether wife relied on husband's misrepresentation when she decided to forgo division of assets

Family Law—Matrimonial assets—Division—Husband entered into two contracts for US$25,000,000 and RM 900,000 during marriage—Part of contract sum vested in husband after separation—Whether such assets were susceptible to division during divorce proceedings

Restitution—Unjust enrichment—Wife allegedly forwent division of assets as a result of husband's fraudulent misrepresentation—Husband's moneys could otherwise have gone to wife on division—Husband's moneys settled into trusts—Whether trustees had been unjustly enriched at wife's expense

Trusts—Constructive trusts—Remedial constructive trust—Wife allegedly forwent division of assets as a result of husband's fraudulent misrepresentation—Wife lost opportunity to ask for share of husband's assets—Husband's moneys settled into trusts before his death—Whether remedial constructive trust could now be declared over assets in trusts

The appellant (‘the Appellant’) was the ex-wife of Ng Hock Seng (‘the deceased’), whose estate was represented by the first respondent. The Appellant and the deceased had been married for ten years before they separated on 7 December 1998. As part of their agreement to separate, the deceased undertook to pay for the medical insurance and all educational expenses (including overseas boarding school expenses) of the two children of the marriage. Prior to their separation, the deceased entered into two agreements for the consideration of US$25,000,000 and RM 900,000 respectively. Part of the US$25,000,000 vested in the deceased after the date of separation. The deceased did not reveal the existence of the two agreements to the Appellant, either during the marriage or in the course of their correspondence during the divorce proceedings. The deceased subsequently filed an affidavit of assets and means (‘the Affidavit’) as part of the divorce proceedings, where he stated that he was willing to pay RM 1,200 per child in maintenance ‘ [d]espite his financial position’. The Appellant claimed that the deceased had made fraudulent misrepresentations, intending to induce her to forgo division of assets. The Appellant claimed that she had relied on these fraudulent misrepresentations when she agreed not to ask for division of assets. She relied, in the main, on two sets of documents which she alleged contained the said fraudulent misrepresentations (viz, the correspondence between the deceased and the Appellant after 7 December 1998 and the Affidavit).

Nine years after the divorce was made absolute, the Appellant brought the present claim for fraudulent misrepresentation against the first respondent, after finding out about the moneys that the deceased had earned under the two agreements. The deceased died in 2004. Prior to his death, he settled the moneys earned under the two agreements into four trusts. The Appellant also brought suit against two of these trusts, which now bear some of the (potential) fruits of her claim in fraudulent misrepresentation. She claimed that the trustees (the second respondent) were unjustly enriched as a result of the deceased's fraudulent misrepresentation, as the moneys which they now held would otherwise have been hers if she had not been induced to forgo division. The Appellant also asked for a remedial constructive trust to be imposed over two of the trusts. The second respondent asserted, inter alia, the defence of laches, as the Appellant had waited nine years to bring this claim.

The trial judge dismissed all the Appellant's claims. She found that the Appellant was not induced to forgo division as the impression that the deceased was a man of straw was wholly the Appellant's own perception and not a result of any representation. She also found that the Appellant's claim in unjust enrichment was elusive as the court had no power to determine what the Appellant would have received on division given the passage of time since the divorce. The trial judge reasoned that the moneys the deceased received under the two agreement were not, in any event, matrimonial assets available for division. Moreover, the trial judge found that the funds had been comingled over the 12 years since they were set up, and no proprietary remedy could be asserted over either of the trusts. The Appellant appealed against the trial judge's findings in fraudulent misrepresentation and unjust enrichment.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) Dishonesty was an essential element in the claim of fraudulent misrepresentation and required a high standard of proof. Recklessness was not sufficient to prove fraud. The testimony and credibility of the representor was essential as an indication of his subjective state of mind: at [30], [34] and [52].

(2) In assessing whether an alleged representation was made, the words used had to be...

To continue reading

Request your trial
71 cases
  • Ochroid Trading Ltd and another v Chua Siok Lui (trading as VIE Import & Export) and another
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 22 January 2018
    ...set out by this Court in Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another [2013] 3 SLR 801 at [98], these requirements are as follows: Has the defendant been benefited or been enriched? Was the enrichment at the expense of the cla......
  • CPIT Investments Ltd v Qilin World Capital Ltd and another
    • Singapore
    • International Commercial Court (Singapore)
    • 17 July 2017
    ...at [36] and says that fault is the basis for imposing a remedial constructive trust, relying on Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve [2013] 3 SLR 801 (“Anna Wee”) at [172]. CPIT submits that the court might impose a constructive trust because Qilin, by selling the Pledged Shares via the......
  • Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 6 August 2013
    ...Development Pte Ltd v Tan Kim Swee Augustine [2008] 2 SLR (R) 474; [2008] 2 SLR 474 (refd) Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve [2013] 3 SLR 801 (folld) Westdeutsche Landesbank Girozentrale v Islington London Borough Council [1996] AC 669 (refd) Yogambikai Nagarajah v Indian Overseas Ba......
  • Goldrich Venture Pte Ltd and another v Halcyon Offshore Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 21 April 2015
    ...case”. This was applied in Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and another [2013] 3 SLR 801 (“Wee Chiaw Sek Anna”) at [30], where the Court of Appeal cited its previous decision in Tang Yoke Kheng in the context of a claim in fra......
  • 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