Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG (No 2)

JudgeKan Ting Chiu J
Judgment Date06 June 2003
Neutral Citation[2003] SGHC 125
Citation[2003] SGHC 125
Defendant CounselHri Kumar (Drew & Napier LLC)
Published date15 January 2004
Date06 June 2003
Subject MatterPlaintiff seeking to amend Statement of Claim in course of trial,Amendment of Statement of Claim in course of trial,Responsibility of counsel with emphasis on efficient conduct and disposal of cases,Pleadings,Civil Procedure,Amendment,Whether new facts were raised and time would be saved,Whether defendant would be put at a disadvantage
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Plaintiff CounselLim Chor Pee (Lim Chor Pee & Partners),M Rani (Lim Chor Pee & Partners)

1 I refused an application by the plaintiff Anthony Wee Soon Kim to amend his statement of claim in this action for the fourth time. He is appealing against my order.


2 The plaintiff was a client of the defendant bank UBS AG. He made foreign exchange transactions in Malaysian ringgits and American dollars through the defendant and participated in the Dynamic Floor Fund managed by it. He was unhappy with the services rendered by the defendant and its employees in these transactions which resulted in losses. When his complaints were not resolved to his satisfaction, he sued the bank.

3 The action was filed on 4 July 2001 and has come on for hearing between 26 February 2002 and 15 March 2002. The plaintiff was in the course of giving his evidence. The action is fixed for further hearing again from 23 June 2003 to 1 August 2003.

4 After the completion of the first tranche of hearing, counsel for the plaintiff Ms Engeline Teh SC discharged herself from acting further for him. Two applications were made to admit Queen’s Counsel to act in her place, but both applications were refused. Mr Lim Chor Pee now acts for the plaintiff.

5 On 6 May 2003 the plaintiff applied to amend his statement of claim following the previous amendments made on 11 September 2001, 31 January 2002 and 28 February 2002.

6 An affidavit was sworn by Mr Lim in support of the application. He deposed that

6. All the documentary evidence relating to the transactions are now before the Court. The proposed amendments are based entirely on the available evidence. In essence, the issues before the Court in our submission would be based on the inference to be drawn from the documentary evidence and the legal interpretation to be put to it.

7. Therefore, in my respectful submission, the proposed Fourth Amended Statement of Claim will shorten the trial as no new facts or documents will be involved. (Emphasis added)

8. In summary, the issues which have now been pleaded are as follows:-

(a) Whether the Defendant has assumed the role of the Plaintiff’s financial investment adviser?

(b) If so, when did the Defendant assume such a role?

(c) If the Defendant had assumed the role of the Plaintiff’s financial investment adviser, did the Defendant become a fiduciary of the Plaintiff?

(d) If so, was the Defendant in breach of its fiduciary duties?

(e) Alternatively, had the Defendant committed professional negligence in advising the Plaintiff in connection with his Ringgit portfolio?

(f) If there was a breach of fiduciary duty or there is professional negligence, what are the damages sustained by the Plaintiff?

9. Several paragraphs in the existing Statement of Claim have been deleted and replaced with new paragraphs to make the narration more coherent and factual.

7 Mr Lim also submitted that the trial will be shortened if the amendments are allowed because the plaintiff would not be proceeding with the allegations of fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and collateral contract raised by him, and will rely on breach of fiduciary duties and negligence.

8 The proposed amendments seek to delete large portions of the existing statement of claim and bring in substantial new portions. Mr Hri Kumar, counsel for the defendant prepared a table which set out the parts of the existing statement of claim affected by the proposed amendments, as well as the new amendments introduced by the proposed amendments.

9 The table showed changes in the facts alleged by the plaintiff, facts not raised before, and new breaches of fiduciary duties. New fiduciary duties are pleaded in addition to the duty "not to allow itself to be in a position in which its personal interests conflicted with the Plaintiff’s interests" currently pleaded. Mr Lim did not take issue with the table or Mr Hri Kumar’s analysis of the proposed...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3556 (suing on behalf of itself and all subsidiary proprietors of Northstar @ AMK) v Orion-One Development Pte Ltd (in liquidation) and another
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 27 d3 Março d3 2019
    ...case on the judicial goal of disposing of civil litigation justly and expeditiously, as highlighted in Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG [2003] 2 SLR(R) 554 (“Anthony Wee”) at [17]–[18], were therefore attenuated in this case. Finally, I was not satisfied that Orion-One would suffer any prejudi......
  • JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 6 d2 Outubro d2 2020
    ...plead particulars of misrepresentation may lead to an unsuccessful claim: Bullen at para 20.20, citing Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG [2003] 2 SLR(R) 554. We first examine the case law on the sufficiency of the pleadings in relation to allegations of fraud or misrepresentation for guidance. ......
  • G Nanda Gobang.Rajasingam Bersama, 18-01-2016
    • Malaysia
    • High Court (Malaysia)
    • 18 d1 Janeiro d1 2016
    ...of disputes in the Courts. I have no difficulty associating with the sentiments expressed in Anthony Wee Soon Kim v. UBS AG (No 2) [2003] 2 SLR 554 where in dismissing the application the court was sagacious in stressing as follows: “Litigants must be aware that with increased emphasis on t......
  • Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 d1 Dezembro d1 2003
    ...re-re-amended statement of claim after the change of solicitors, but failed to obtain leave (see Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG (No 2) [2003] 2 SLR 554). 6. The plaintiff’s opening statement set out the issues (a) Whether the Defendant had misrepresented to the Plaintiff the nature of the DF......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 d1 Dezembro d1 2003
    ...2 SLR 91 (also referred to infra, with regard to civil procedure; for related proceedings, see Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG (No 2)[2003] 2 SLR 554 as well as Re De Lacy Richard QC[2003] 4 SLR 23); and on banking law generally, see Chapter 4 of this Review); (d) building contracts (see, eg,......
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2003, December 2003
    • 1 d1 Dezembro d1 2003
    ...this provision (see Kiyue Co Ltd v Aquagen International Pte Ltd[2003] 3 SLR 130). Amendment 6.35 In Wee Soon Kim Anthony v UBS AG (No 3)[2003] 2 SLR 554, the plaintiff applied to make a fourth set of amendments to his statement of claim in the course of the trial. The amendments ‘sought to......

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