Blog Series: Deceit, Counterclaims, and Subsale Particulars Part 1: Case Law Foundations — Panatron and Tong Chen
This post discusses general legal principles and case law for public education. It does not allege misconduct by any specific individual or party. All examples are illustrative only, and factual determinations remain the responsibility of the courts.
🧾 Blog Series: Deceit, Counterclaims, and Subsale Particulars
Part 1: Case Law Foundations — Panatron and Tong Chen
⚖️ Key Cases
Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee [2001] SGCA 49
The Court of Appeal held that failure to act cautiously is not a defence to deceit. Once a knowingly false statement is proven, liability follows.
Tong Chen v Yeo Mei San [2011] SGHC 27 The High Court reinforced those victims of fraudulent misrepresentation are not penalized for failing to verify the truth of representations. Fraud is judged by the wrongdoer’s intent, not the victim’s diligence.
Fraudulent misrepresentation is intentional wrongdoing.
Reliance on false statements is sufficient; victims need not prove they investigated.
Damages in deceit extend to all losses flowing directly from the fraud.
Courts will not excuse intentional misrepresentation by shifting blame to purchasers or other parties.
💡 Why This Matters
These cases establish that fraud cannot be excused by saying “the purchaser should have checked.” Once deceit is proven, liability follows. This principle is vital in property disputes where subsale particulars are produced to contest valuations.
Disclaimer applies.
Comments