WONG BEN & 4 Ors v THE WATCHFUND LIMITED & Anor
Key facts
| Court | High Court (General Division) |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Teh Hwee Hwee |
| Charges / claim | Contract, Evidence, Tort, Companies |
| Counsel | Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, Union Law LLP, Lam Zhi Yong Daniel, Lum Rui Loong Manfred, Lye Hoong Yip Raymond, Sean Chen Siang En, Zhulkarnain Bin Abdul Rahim |
Source: [2024] SGHC 110, High Court (General Division), decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (7)
Case Significance
WONG BEN & 4 Ors v THE WATCHFUND LIMITED & Anor [2024] SGHC 110 was decided by the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 30 April 2024, in Suit No 532 of 2021, with Teh Hwee Hwee J delivering the reserved judgment after hearings in May and July 2023 and on 15 March 2024. The dispute concerned an investment scheme involving high-end luxury watches. The plaintiffs — Wong Ben, Liew Edmund Ket Vui, Wong Tim Fuk Gary, Wong Nga Kok and MCA Limited — were parties associated with Innovest Financial Group Limited, a Hong Kong-registered company providing financial advisory, asset management and succession planning services. They had entered into investment agreements with the first defendant, The WatchFund Limited, a Hong Kong-registered investment vehicle operated by its Singaporean director and second defendant, Dominic Khoo Kong Weng.
Under the agreements, the plaintiffs were to purchase a number of luxury watches from the first defendant. The catchwords record that the case engaged contract remedies including damages and specific performance, repudiatory breach, the hearsay rule on admissibility of evidence, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation in tort, and the company law question of lifting the corporate veil. The plaintiffs were represented by Union Law LLP, with the defendants represented by Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP. The judgment cited the Civil Law Act and the Evidence Act.
[2024] SGHC 110 explained
WONG BEN & 4 Ors v THE WATCHFUND LIMITED & Anor ([2024] SGHC 110) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 30 April 2024. It is categorised under Contract, Evidence, Tort, and Companies. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.
What is [2024] SGHC 110 about?
WONG BEN & 4 Ors v THE WATCHFUND LIMITED & Anor ([2024] SGHC 110) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Remedies — Damages”, “Contract — Breach — Repudiatory breach”, “Contract — Remedies — Specific performance”, and “Evidence — Admissibility of evidence — Hearsay”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2024] SGHC 110 consider?
The judgment refers to Civil Law Act (Cap 43) and Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
In this General Division of the High Court matter, plaintiffs associated with a Hong Kong company brought claims against The WatchFund Limited, a Hong Kong investment vehicle, and its Singaporean director over an investment scheme in which they purchased luxury watches on the basis that the first defendant would later offer to re-purchase them at a markup, bringing claims for fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and breach of contract, and seeking to lift the corporate veil. The court dismissed the misrepresentation claims, found the first defendant liable for breach of the disputed investment agreements, ordered specific performance of those agreements except the one with Ms Yung, granted the fifth plaintiff nominal damages of $1,000 for the breach of Ms Yung's agreement, and declined to lift the corporate veil to hold the second defendant personally responsible.
What was WONG BEN & 4 Ors v THE WATCHFUND LIMITED [2024] SGHC 110 about?
It was a General Division of the High Court suit, decided 30 April 2024 by Teh Hwee Hwee J, concerning an investment scheme in high-end luxury watches. The plaintiffs, linked to Innovest Financial Group Limited, had investment agreements with The WatchFund Limited and its director Dominic Khoo Kong Weng.
Who were the parties in The WatchFund Limited luxury watch investment case ([2024] SGHC 110)?
The plaintiffs were Wong Ben, Liew Edmund Ket Vui, Wong Tim Fuk Gary, Wong Nga Kok and MCA Limited, associated with Hong Kong-registered Innovest Financial Group Limited. The defendants were The WatchFund Limited, a Hong Kong investment vehicle, and its Singaporean director Dominic Khoo Kong Weng.
What legal issues did [2024] SGHC 110 involve?
According to the catchwords, the case engaged contract remedies including damages and specific performance, repudiatory breach, the hearsay rule of evidence, fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation in tort, and lifting the corporate veil. The judgment referenced the Civil Law Act and the Evidence Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (45)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 110)