Judgment Header
Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd and Others [2009] SGHC 44
Court DecisionSGHC
[2009] SGHC 44
[2009] SGHC 44
General Division of the High Court of Singapore23 Feb 2009Suit 351/2007
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Subsequent treatment
Cited in 9 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
How this case connects
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Cited by
9Later cases and laws citing this decision
“y was generating monthly rental income of S$35,500 was made by Mr Hau to Mr Lee, rather than directly from the first defendant. As observed in Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd and others [2009] SGHC 44 at [32], “[t]he law does not require the representation to be made directly to the plaintiff. It is suffi”
“it is made to the public generally, with a view of being acted on: Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 (“Panatron”) at [14]; Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd and others [2009] SGHC 44 (“Thode”) at [32]. So long as JTA, as one of the members of that class of persons to whom the representati”
“ns of whom the plaintiff is one, or even if it is made to the public generally, with a view of being acted on: Panatron ([138] supra) at [14]; Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd and others [2009] SGHC 44 (“Thode”) at [32]. So long as JTA, as one of the members of that class of persons to whom the representat”
“time and have been followed by the Singapore courts: JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others [2020] 2 SLR 1256 at [191]; Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd and others [2009] SGHC 44 at [32]. It cannot be that a fraudster can avoid liability on the basis that the false representation was”
“issue is whether in “all the circumstances” it has been impliedly represented that there exists some state of facts different from the truth: Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd and Others [2009] SGHC 44 at [30], citing Chitty on Contracts vol 1 (Hugh Beale gen ed) (Sweet & Maxwell, 30th Ed, 2008), at para 6-”
Show 4 moreShow fewer
“9] 2 SLR(R) 532 at [12]); and (b) the principle that a representation made to a third party for intended transmission to the plaintiff can be actionable (Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd [2009] SGHC 44 at [32]).”
“it was undisputed that the Claimants and Dr Goh never dealt with each other directly, it is also relevant to have regard to the principle, recognised in Thode Gerg Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd [2009] SGHC 44 at [32] (“Mintwell Industry”), that the law does not require the representation to be made directly to the”
“to K R Handley, Spencer Bower, Turner and Handley Actionable Misrepresentation, (Butterworths, 4th Ed, 2000) at para 53, which was cited with approval in Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd [2009] SGHC 44 at [27]. That extract reads:”
“it occurred and could not retrospectively be made unlawful. I note in passing that the rule in Expert Clothing was applied by Belinda Ang J in Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd and Others [2009] SGHC 44 at [37].”
Authorities cited
0Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit 351/2007
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2009-02-23
Something wrong on this page?
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.