← All Authorities
Singapore duty of careprofessional negligencequincecare duty

Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen

[2013] 4 SLR 886
JurisdictionSingapore
CourtSingapore Court of Appeal
Year2013
StatusBinding authority

Summary

A private bank owes a limited duty of care to advise a sophisticated investor, assessed by reference to the scope of the retainer and the investor's own expertise.

Key Principle

duty of care in private banking; bank's duty to advise sophisticated investor is limited

Area of Law

tort

Related Cases

Bird v DP (A Pseudonym) (2024) 98 ALJR 486

High Court of Australia held a religious organisation vicariously liable for sexual abuse by a priest, recognising a relationship akin to employment sufficient to ground vicarious liability.

Bryant v Badenoch Integrated Logging Pty Ltd (2023) 278 CLR 99

High Court of Australia held that the peak indebtedness rule does not apply when assessing unfair preferences under s 588FA of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Kozarov v Victoria (2022) 275 CLR 115

An employer owes a duty to take reasonable steps to protect an employee from psychiatric injury caused by vicarious trauma, and may breach that duty by failing to act on obvious warning signs.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse W...