Cathay Theatres Pte Ltd v LKM Investments Holdings Pte Ltd

CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
JudgeS Rajendran J
Judgment Date21 January 2000
Neutral Citation[2000] SGHC 3
Citation[2000] SGHC 3
Docket NumberSuit No 1944 of 1997 (Summons in Chambers No 5268 of 1999),Originating Summons No 1421 of 1999 (Summons In Chambers No 5698 of 1999)
Published date19 September 2003
Defendant CounselMichael Hwang SC and Christine Chan (Allen & Gledhill)
Plaintiff CounselImran Khwaja and Sayana Baratham (Tan Rajah & Cheah)
Date21 January 2000
Subject MatterPlaintiffs seeking specific performance of contract,Judgments and orders,Whether special circumstances exist to justify grant of stay,Whether appeal nugatory if stay not granted,Impecunious defendants,Civil Procedure,Stay of execution pending appeal,Vendor having lien on property

:The plaintiffs are the lessees of a property known as `Regal Theatre` under a 99-year lease granted by the Housing & Development Board. The defendants own and manage residential properties in Singapore.

The defendants on 17 May 1996 entered into a contract with the plaintiffs for the purchase of Regal Theatre for the sum of $16.5m. Ten per cent of the purchase price was paid to the plaintiffs and the balance was payable on the completion of the transaction scheduled for 16 August 1996. Completion of the purchase did not, however, take place.

On 13 November 1997 the plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendants claiming, inter alia, specific performance of the sale and purchase agreement. The defendants counterclaimed for rescission of the agreement on grounds of misrepresentation and defects in the plaintiffs` title and for the refund of the 10% deposit.

The hearing of the action took place before the Honourable Lee Seiu Kin JC. On 29 June 1999 Lee Seiu Kin JC made the following declaration/orders:

(1) The plaintiffs` notice to complete dated 17 August 1996 with regard to the sale of the leasehold property known as Regal Theatre, 3501 Jalan Bukit Merah, Singapore (the `property`) is valid.

(2) The plaintiffs are not obliged to transfer the deposits (if any) paid to them pursuant to cl 2(iv) of each of the leases granted by the plaintiffs as landlord to Mcdonald`s Restaurants Pte Ltd (`Mcdonald`s`) for successive terms (the `leases`) as set out in the Schedule hereto until Mcdonald`s have agreed in writing to release them from all their obligations in respect thereof and that in the event that such agreement in writing is provided by Mcdonald`s, the obligations of the plaintiffs under cl 4(3) of the option relating to the property granted by the plaintiffs to the defendants on 17 April 1996 will be limited to transferring the cash deposit of $24,000 held in respect of the current lease.

(3) The plaintiffs are entitled to a lien on the property in respect of the sum due and owing by the defendants to the plaintiffs under the orders made in paras (4) and (5) below until payment and for the plaintiffs` costs of this action.

(4) The defendants specifically performed the contract for sale of the property within 14 days from the date of judgment and pay to the plaintiffs the sum of $14,850,000 being the balance of the purchase price.

(5) The defendants pay the plaintiffs late completion interest under condition 8(a) of the Law Society`s Conditions of Sale 1994 on the balance of the purchase price at 10% per annum amounting to $4,068.49 per day from 17 August 1996 to the date of actual completion less the rent received in respect of the property by the plaintiffs as landlord from 17 August 1996 to the date of actual completion.

(6) In the event of default being made by the defendants in making the payment due to the plaintiffs, the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
11 cases
  • E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and another (Orion Oil Limited and another, Interveners)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 15 Septiembre 2010
    ...... financial pressure. His investments were then badly hit by the global financial. crisis ...In Ng. Bok Eng Holdings" Pte Ltd and another v Wong Ser Wan . [2005] 4 SLR(R)\xC2"... Good Property . was cited in Cathay Theatres Pte Ltd v LKM Investment Holding. Pte Ltd ......
  • Pacific King Shipping Pte Ltd and another v Glory Wealth Shipping Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 7 Junio 2010
    ...Palmer’s Company Law vol 3 at pp 15068-15069, as quoted approvingly in LKM Investment Holdings Pte Ltd v Cathay Theatres Pte Ltd [2000] 1 SLR(R) 135 at [20], elucidates: … the dispute must be bona fide in both a subjective and an objective sense. Thus the reason for not paying the debt must......
  • Viet Hai Petroleum Corporation v Ng Jun Quan and another and another matter
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 26 Abril 2016
    ...v Central Bank of India [2003] 2 SLR(R) 33; [2003] 2 SLR 33 (folld) Cathay Theatres Pte Ltd v LKM Investment Holdings Pte Ltd [2000] 1 SLR(R) 15; [2000] 1 SLR 701 (folld) Denis Matthew Harte v Tan Hun Hoe [2001] SGHC 19 (folld) Gobind Lalwani v Basco Enterprises Pte Ltd [1998] 3 SLR(R) 1019......
  • Diamond Glass Enterprise Pte Ltd v Zhong Kai Construction Co Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
    • 21 Junio 2021
    ...‘disputed on some substantial grounds’. In another first instance decision, LKM Investment Holdings Pte Ltd v Cathay Theatres Pte Ltd [2000] 1 SLR(R) 135 (“LKM Investment”), Judith Prakash J (as she then was) similarly ruled that the statutory presumption of insolvency could not be invoked ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT