Bay Lim Piang v Lye Cher Kang

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 13 consider?

The judgment refers to Civil Law Act (Cap 43) and Misrepresentation Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 13 High Court (General Division) 19 January 2023 HC/S 528/2020 58 min read

13 cases cited Cited by 1 case

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	19 January 2023
Judge	Kwek Mean Luck
Charges / claim	Contract, Tort
Counsel	Adelphi Law Chambers LLC, Eldan Law LLP, Kang Kok Boon, Favian, Muhammad Imran Bin Abdul Rahim, Yap Wei Xuan Mendel, Yuan Jingjie

Source: [2023] SGHC 13, High Court (General Division), decided 19 January 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Contract — Misrepresentation Act Contract — Misrepresentation — Fraudulent Tort — Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation Contract — Consideration — Forbearance — Whether consideration was requested

Practice Areas

Contract Tort

Judges (1)

Kwek Mean Luck Delivered

Counsel (6)

Adelphi Law Chambers LLC Firm Eldan Law LLP Firm Kang Kok Boon, Favian Counsel Defendant Muhammad Imran Bin Abdul Rahim Counsel Plaintiff Yap Wei Xuan Mendel Counsel Plaintiff Yuan Jingjie Counsel Plaintiff

Parties (2)

Bay Lim Piang Plaintiff Lye Cher Kang Defendant

Case Significance

Bay Lim Piang v Lye Cher Kang [2023] SGHC 13 is grounds of decision of the General Division of the High Court by Kwek Mean Luck J, dated 19 January 2023, in Suit No 528 of 2020. The plaintiff, Mr Bay Lim Piang, claimed that the defendant, Mr Lye Cher Kang Alan, had made fraudulent representations that induced him to loan S$2,604,070.60 to Alan, and pleaded in the alternative misrepresentation under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act, negligent misrepresentation, and breach of an agreement dated 27 July 2014; Alan's main defence was that he had been defrauded by one Mr Don Brendan Robert and had merely "passed on" Brendan's representations. Following trial, the judge held that Bay succeeded in fraudulent misrepresentation, misrepresentation under s 2(1) of the MRA and negligent misrepresentation, and was entitled to rescission of the loans or to damages of S$2,604,070.60, with Alan appealing the decision.

[2023] SGHC 13 explained

Bay Lim Piang v Lye Cher Kang ([2023] SGHC 13) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 19 January 2023. It is categorised under Contract and Tort. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. 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 [2023] SGHC 13 about?

Bay Lim Piang v Lye Cher Kang ([2023] SGHC 13) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Misrepresentation Act”, “Contract — Misrepresentation — Fraudulent”, “Tort — Misrepresentation — Negligent misrepresentation”, and “Contract — Consideration — Forbearance — Whether consideration was requested”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 13 consider?

The judgment refers to Civil Law Act (Cap 43) and Misrepresentation Act. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

How influential is [2023] SGHC 13?

Within this corpus, [2023] SGHC 13 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

Summary

Bay Lim Piang sued Lye Cher Kang, alleging fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation and misrepresentation under section 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act, claiming he was induced to lend S$2,604,070.60. The defendant argued he had merely passed on representations made by a third party. The court held Bay succeeded on all three misrepresentation claims and was entitled to rescission or damages of S$2,604,070.60, but could not enforce a 27 July 2014 agreement for want of consideration.

What did the court decide in Bay Lim Piang v Lye Cher Kang ([2023] SGHC 13)?

Kwek Mean Luck J held that Bay Lim Piang succeeded in fraudulent misrepresentation, misrepresentation under s 2(1) of the Misrepresentation Act, and negligent misrepresentation. Bay was entitled to rescission of the loans or damages of S$2,604,070.60. The defendant, Lye Cher Kang Alan, appealed.

What was the defendant's defence in Bay Lim Piang v Lye Cher Kang ([2023] SGHC 13)?

Alan's main defence was that he had himself been defrauded by one Mr Don Brendan Robert, and that he had merely "passed on" Brendan's representations to Bay Lim Piang, who had loaned him S$2,604,070.60.