Rose CJ:

This is a curious case but, as we have made up our minds, we think it is unnecessary to delay the matter further by reserving judgment. It is one of those cases which require to be regarded with considerable caution. Any plaintiff who is a knowledgeable person who comes into Court and says that he did something or bought something on the strength of a representation must, naturally, expect his case to be closely examined, because Courts as a rule are somewhat chary of finding that a competent plaintiff, a professional dealer or something of that sort, relied in fact on a representation when he had his own knowledge and experience to guide him.

Well now, in this particular case the facts seem to us to justify the Judge in coming to the decision that he did with regard to them. First, one has to consider whether the representation was made - in the present case its materiality is not in question; secondly, whether that representation was false; and thirdly - this of course is usually the most difficult point for a plaintiff to overcome - whether the plaintiff in fact acted upon it.

Now, what are the facts in this case? The plaintiff apparently was what is called here in this country a remiser, that is, a broker, in a firm of brokers in which the defendant held the principal interest. It appears that at the inauguration of the firm he held $51,000 of the capital and the remaining $49,000 was held by another man, one Goh Teik Teong. Subsequently the $49,000 was subdivided between Goh and his two infant children.

The position, therefore, was that Mr. Senanayake was a majority partner - just a majority partner - in this firm. The plaintiff had been working in the same firm for some four years prior to the episode in question as a broker, but it is conceded that in her capacity as a remiser she would not have had access to the books of the firm as according to the position taken up by the defendant, which on that point is reasonable enough, the books were only available to the partners in the firm.

Well now, what is the evidence for the plaintiff? She says that on two days in April, 13 April and 17 April, representations were made to her in the presence of a witness, a Dr Kiani (who testified on the plaintiff's behalf), about this matter and that she was offered by the defendant ten shares, ten of his shares - it is important to note that he is offering to sell his own personal shares - for $40,000; which, of course, is obviously a high price being four times the amount of their original valuation. She says - and that is common ground - that she took five shares at $20,000, being half the number she was offered.

Now of course it is very important to consider what the evidence is as to that transaction. The plaintiff says that she bought those shares because she thought that it was a profitable business. Now why did she think it was a profitable business? She thought it was a profitable business because the defendant said so; and the defendant, she says, was a rich man, an influential man, a good business man, and had been her employer for a number of years. She therefore accepted what he said. He told her that it was a gold mine. Well that of course means nothing more than that it was a profitable affair; that he trusted her; that she brought in good clients and so on; and that it would be a great mistake if she missed this golden opportunity of entering this flourishing business.

Then there was the discussion or, at any rate, the implication that on the purchase of these shares she would either at once or in due course - there was considerable argument about that - become a partner in the firm. The primary matter, however, was, according to her case that she invested $20,000 by buying Mr. Senanayake's own personal shares on the representation that this was a flourishing business; that it was a gold mine and that she must not miss the golden opportunity.

Well now, as I say, on the face of it, one must investi