Ye Huishi Rachel v Ng Ke Ming Jerry: Agarwood Investment Dispute over Settlement Agreement

In Suit 989 of 2019, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Rachel Ye Huishi sued Ng Ke Ming Jerry for moneys owed under a Settlement Agreement related to an agarwood investment. The court, presided over by Senior Judge Lai Siu Chiu, dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that the Settlement Agreement was not valid or enforceable due to duress and misrepresentation by the Plaintiff. The court found that the Plaintiff had pressured the Defendant into signing the agreement and misrepresented its purpose.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs to the Defendant.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Rachel Ye sued Jerry Ng over an agarwood investment. The court found the settlement agreement unenforceable due to duress and misrepresentation.

1.7 Decision Date

1 November 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ye Huishi Rachel	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Prabhakaran s/o Narayanan Nair of Karan Nair and Co Anne Wong of Karan Nair and Co
Ng Ke Ming Jerry	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Luke Anton Netto of Netto & Magin LLC Chiam Jia-An of Netto & Magin LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Siu Chiu	Senior Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Prabhakaran s/o Narayanan Nair	Karan Nair and Co
Anne Wong	Karan Nair and Co
Luke Anton Netto	Netto & Magin LLC
Chiam Jia-An	Netto & Magin LLC

4. Facts

Plaintiff invested in agarwood through the Defendant, who introduced her to Cedric.
Plaintiff claimed the Defendant owed her $1,225,900 under a Settlement Agreement.
Defendant claimed he signed the Settlement Agreement under duress and misrepresentation.
Plaintiff allegedly told the Defendant the agreement was only for show to appease her investors.
Plaintiff did not call her brother, the supposed witness, to testify.
Plaintiff deleted WhatsApp messages, suggesting she had something to hide.
Defendant produced WhatsApp messages showing Plaintiff communicated directly with Cedric.

5. Formal Citations

Ye Huishi Rachel v Ng Ke Ming Jerry, Suit No 989 of 2019, [2021] SGHC 250

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2017-02-07	Plaintiff started agarwood investment with $10,000.
2017-06-01	Defendant returned $13,000 to the Plaintiff, including $3,000 profit.
2018-04-01	Plaintiff invested $80,000 with the Defendant.
2018-06-01	Defendant returned $100,700 to the Plaintiff, including $20,700 profit.
2018-06-01	Plaintiff invested $100,000 with the Defendant via Trello platform.
2018-12-01	Plaintiff invested a further $843,000 with the Defendant via the Trello platform.
2019-06-01	Ong & Co LLC engaged to prepare the Settlement Agreement.
2019-06-10	Lawyers sent a letter of demand to the Defendant.
2019-07-16	Settlement Agreement signed.
2019-08-01	First instalment of $100,000 due under Settlement Agreement.
2019-09-01	Second instalment of $200,000 due under Settlement Agreement.
2019-09-16	Plaintiff's solicitors sent a Letter of Demand.
2019-10-02	Plaintiff commenced Suit No 989 of 2019.
2020-12-22	Defendant made an Offer to Settle.
2020-12-30	Plaintiff rejected the Offer to Settle.
2021-03-11	Court granted leave to file a supplementary AEIC.
2021-03-17	Trial began.
2021-04-30	Judgment reserved.
2021-11-02	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Validity of Settlement Agreement
- Outcome: The court held that the Settlement Agreement was not valid or enforceable due to duress and misrepresentation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Duress
  - Undue Influence
  - Intention to create legal relations
  - Non est factum
- Related Cases:
  - [2021] 1 SLR 1176
  - [1967] 2 QB 786

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Toh Eng Tiah v Jiang Angelina and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 1176	Singapore	Cited for the definition of a 'sham' agreement, where parties intend to give the appearance of creating legal rights and obligations to third parties or the court, but do not actually intend to create such rights and obligations.
Snook v London and West Riding Investments Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1967] 2 QB 786	England and Wales	Cited for the classic definition of a 'sham' agreement, requiring a common intention among all parties that the acts or documents are not to create the legal rights and obligations they appear to create.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Agarwood
Settlement Agreement
Trello
Duress
Undue Influence
Sham agreement
Cedric
Investors
Nanning Scheme

15.2 Keywords

agarwood
investment
settlement agreement
duress
misrepresentation

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Contract Law	90
Sham Agreement	70
Breach of Contract	60
Misrepresentation	50
Undue Influence	40
Duress	40
Agarwood Investment	30
Estoppel	30
Summary Judgement	20
Evidence	20
Civil Procedure	20

16. Subjects

Contract Dispute
Investment Dispute