Quek Tiong Kheng and another v Chang Choong Khoon Mark and others

Choo Han Teck J:

[1] The applicant in this summons before me was the first plaintiff in the action in DC Suit No 1017 of 2009. His wife Lim Soon Boey was the second plaintiff. He is a 60-year old retiree and his wife is a music teacher. They have three children aged 11, 13 and 15 years old respectively. In November 2006 the plaintiffs invested a total of US$45,000 in some dubiously described investments units in alleged property interests in Weesatche, Goliad County, Texas (“WSG”) and Brookshire Salt Dome County, Texas (“BSW”) respectively. It transpired that these were very poor investments, if indeed they could be true investments. The plaintiffs have since described the nature of these interests as “junk bonds” and a “Ponzi scheme”. They soon realised the folly of their investment and sued one Mark Chang (“Mark”) and Oilpods Singapore Pte Ltd (“Oilpods”). The former was a director of the latter. The plaintiffs also sued one Karin Yan (“Karin”), who was the second defendant at trial and the second respondent in DCA 12 of 2012. Karin was a salesperson employed by Oilpods. The claims were filed on 27 February 2009.

[2] The action was tried in the District Court, and after two weeks’ trial, the first plaintiff’s claim against Mark and Oilpods was allowed on 27 March 2012. The District Judge (“DJ”) dismissed his claim against Karin. The second plaintiff’s claims against all three defendants were dismissed. The plaintiffs’ claims were based mainly on fraud and misrepresentation. The second plaintiff was of the view that the DJ was wrong to dismiss her claims on the basis that she had suffered no damage.

[3] The plaintiffs appealed to the High Court in DCA 12 of 2012. Consequently, an application was made to the High Court for leave to adduce further evidence for the purpose of DCA 12 of 2012. The application was allowed by Lai J on 7 August 2012. The further evidence concerned mainly banking transactions which the second plaintiff claimed showed that the money invested came from her earnings as a music teacher. The appeals by the plaintiffs against the DJ’s judgment were eventually heard by Coomaraswamy JC on 9 October 2012. The appeals were dismissed.

[4] The plaintiffs were represented by Winston Quek at trial, and a Wendy Low (from a different law firm) on appeal. Although the plaintiffs seemed to be advised by yet another solicitor, no counsel appeared on their behalf in this summons. The second plaintiff did not appear and the first plaintiff appeared in person. The summons itself was a prolix document that in the main was an appeal against the District Court’s decision. It also prayed the admission of various documents which Mr Andrew Tan (“Mr Tan”), counsel for Karin, said were the subject of Lai J’s orders.

[5] This present summons was fixed for hearing before Coomaraswamy JC but the first plaintiff objected to Coomaraswamy JC hearing this application. In the meantime, the solicitors for Karin had taken out garnishee proceedings against the plaintiffs but the garnishee proceedings were stood down pending the outcome of the summons before me.