Panircelvan s/o Kaliannan and others v Ee Hoong Liang [2022] SGHC 190

Introduction

Background Facts

Issues on appeal

Principles on Summary Judgment

Fraud Issue

Pleading of fraud

Whether the non-disclosure amounted to fraud

Whether the non-disclosure is material

Whether the fraud is extrinsic or intrinsic

(a) Extrinsic fraud refers to fraud taking place outside trial. This includes bribery of a solicitor, counsel, or a witness; collusion with a representative party to the prejudice of beneficial interest; fraud going to the jurisdiction of the court; and perjury during discovery.

(b) Intrinsic fraud refers to fraud taking place within trial. This includes false statements made at the trial which were met by counter-statements by the other side, and adjudicated upon by the Court; fraud going to the merits of the judgment; and perjury at trial.

(a) The existence of the settlement sum was something that the Defendant knew of at the time of the US Action. The Defendant and his spouse had by then received partial payouts from the Class Action, amounting to $4,945.34. Counsel for the Defendant accepted that the Defendant knew that the Plaintiffs were also part of the Class Action so he would know that they had received some monies.

(b) It was also clear from the Defendant’s court documents that he was aware of this. In the Defendant’s Motion in Support of Motion to Dismiss, he said that the NDD assets were liquidated and all monetary proceeds were distributed to the Plaintiffs between March to April 2017. The Defendant further alleged that the Plaintiffs had omitted this fact in their case complaint filing. The Defendant also said that the NDD hotel room units were already liquidated and all monetary proceeds were paid to the plaintiffs since March or April 2017.

(c) The Defendant’s position was that he did not know exactly how much the Plaintiffs received in their payouts. But he did know that they had received some payouts. Despite knowing this, the Defendant never raised to the US District Court any complaint that some payouts would have been received by the Plaintiffs.

Natural Justice Issue

(a) On 19 April 2018, the US District Court directed the Clerk to email a copy of the disclosure orders to the defendant at his Singnet Email Address.

(b) From 17 to 19 September 2017, the Defendant exchanged several emails with the US District Court, using his Singnet Email Address, stating that he would not be attending the telephone conference call because he has filed his Motion to Dismiss.

(c) On 6th October 2017, the Defendant emailed US District Court, using his Singnet Email Address, and stated that “there was no case for [him] to answer”.

Quantum of damages claimed

Conclusion