In Lee Hsueh Ching (alias Lee Sargeant Fiona) and another v Loh Kia Hui (Bank Julius Baer & Co Ltd, third party) [2025] SGHC 258, the Singapore High Court considered a claim by the Bank’s customers against their former bank relationship manager (“RM“), and a third-party claim by the RM against the Bank. The Court had to consider whether a duty of care existed beyond the contractual framework, and whether the Bank was required to indemnify/contribute to the RM in vicarious liability or agency.
The customers’ and RM’s claims were dismissed by the Court in their entirety. The Court found that there was “no good reason” and “no necessity” for the RM to have commenced a claim against the Bank. The Bank was successfully represented by Rebecca Chew, Priscilla Soh and Alicia Tan of Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP.
Factual findings
The Claimants were customers of the Bank. They sued their former RM at the Bank in negligence over advice and alleged assurances surrounding certain shares they had owned (“LAC shares“). The Claimants alleged that the RM advised them to sell the LAC shares, to adopt short‑term trading on price fluctuations, and promised to monitor the share price and notify them when the price fell below C$1. The RM denied giving such advice or representation.
The Court found it more likely than not that the RM met the 1st Claimant at the Bank’s premises on 22 September 2017, where she encouraged the Claimants to sell the LAC shares, and assured the Claimants that she would “help” to “monitor” the LAC share price.
The Court also found that the RM had encouraged the customers to sell the LAC shares to persuade them to invest the sale proceeds in funds, obtain a loan from the Bank on security of the funds, and to use the loans to purchase a life insurance policy.
However, the RM did not promise the Claimants that she would help to monitor the LAC share price, and to alert the Claimants each time the LAC share price fell below C$1.
Negligence
The Claimants alleged a broad duty of care, including the duty to monitor share prices, give notice to the Claimants, and provide price advice beyond the Bank’s contractual framework. The Court held that such duty of care was not established, given the clear contractual disclaimers in the Bank’s General Terms and Conditions as well as the evidence adduced by the Claimants. The Bank had also provided adequate risk disclosures that any views were not investment advice and that the Claimants would rely on their own judgment.
The Court found that the alleged monitoring obligation by the RM was likely a “loose and vague statement” made by the RM at the meeting with the 1st Claimant, which did not lead the RM to assume a responsibility to monitor the LAC share price. Causation was also not made out, as the Claimants’ claimed counterfactual trading gains were speculative and inconsistent with their actual trading and resources during relevant periods.
Accordingly, the claim in negligence was dismissed.
Third‑party claim
The interesting issue in the RM’s third‑party claim against the Bank was whether the RM can rely on the principle of vicarious liability to make a claim against the Bank when the RM is being sued in her own personal capacity in respect of her role as a relationship manager. The team from Rajah & Tann argued that vicarious liability does not arise in this factual situation and that the RM cannot found a claim against the Bank in vicarious liability when the RM is sued by customers of the Bank. Notwithstanding the foregoing, as the main claim was dismissed, vicarious liability did not arise.
Further, the Court found that the RM’s “monitoring” assurance was not authorised by the Bank. Given that such conduct was unauthorised by the Bank, it could not be said that the claim was brought about as a result of the RM acting as an agent of the Bank in the execution of her authority. The RM was thus not entitled to bring a claim against the Bank in agency.
Concluding Remarks
Although the Claimants’ claim was dismissed in its entirety by the Court, what is significant from this decision is the nuanced factual findings by the Court, which was arrived at after a close review of the facts over a 10-year period. The Court was persuaded by the Claimants’ “consistent and unshaken testimony“. The Court also showed a keen regard for the RM’s financial motivations in the analysis of what was in fact promised by the RM to the Claimants. This case serves as good guidance for RMs, on how their conduct and communications will be reviewed by the Court with a fine-tooth comb and from a commercial perspective when there is a dispute with customers.
Disclaimer
Rajah & Tann Asia is a network of member firms with local legal practices in Cambodia, Indonesia, Lao PDR, Malaysia, Myanmar, the Philippines, Singapore, Thailand and Vietnam. Our Asian network also includes our regional office in China as well as regional desks focused on Brunei, Japan and South Asia. Member firms are independently constituted and regulated in accordance with relevant local requirements.
The contents of this publication are owned by Rajah & Tann Asia together with each of its member firms and are subject to all relevant protection (including but not limited to copyright protection) under the laws of each of the countries where the member firm operates and, through international treaties, other countries. No part of this publication may be reproduced, licensed, sold, published, transmitted, modified, adapted, publicly displayed, broadcast (including storage in any medium by electronic means whether or not transiently for any purpose save as permitted herein) without the prior written permission of Rajah & Tann Asia or its respective member firms.
Please note also that whilst the information in this publication is correct to the best of our knowledge and belief at the time of writing, it is only intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter and should not be treated as legal advice or a substitute for specific professional advice for any particular course of action as such information may not suit your specific business and operational requirements. You should seek legal advice for your specific situation. In addition, the information in this publication does not create any relationship, whether legally binding or otherwise. Rajah & Tann Asia and its member firms do not accept, and fully disclaim, responsibility for any loss or damage which may result from accessing or relying on the information in this publication.
