Oriental Centre Investments Ltd & Anor v Societe Generale [2007] SGCA 24
In a robust judgment, the Singapore Court of Appeal rejected the appellant's (OCI) argument alleged pre-contractual representations could override express terms of dealing between the parties, including non-reliance clauses and disclaimers.
The first appellant was the client of the respondent and has opened an investment account through which investment in a number of structured products (including equity and index linked deposits) were made. The appellants' long list of claims rejected by the court included damages for breach of fiduciary and contractual duties and duties as financial adviser and banker
The court appeared to based its reason on, inter alia, the need for commercial certainty and that the commercial risk assumed by the parties were reflected in the pricing of the transactions.
Cases and Materials referred to by the court
Boustead Trading (1985) v Arab Malaysian Merchant Bank [1995] 3 MLJ 331 (on the pleading of estoppel)
Peekay Intermark Ltd v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Ltd [2006] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 511
Bottin International Investments Limited v Venson Group [2006] EWHC 3112 (Ch)
Valse Holdings SA v Merrill Lynch International Bank Ltd. [2004] EWCH 2471 (what is a discretionary (investment) account?)
Singapore White Book, Singapore Civil Procedure 2003, para. 18/19/6 (on striking out)
Singapore Court Practice 2006 (LexisNexis, 2006), para 18/8/11
January 2008
^