District Judge Leslie Chew:
Background
The action is a claim by the Plaintiffs for their commission in acting as housing agents or brokers for the Defendant. The Plaintiffs’ claim is for the sum of $60,990 being the commission which they say they are entitled to be paid by the Defendant.
Being of the view that the claim is a straightforward one, the Plaintiffs applied for summary judgment on their claim which was dismissed by the Deputy Registrar (‘DR’). The Plaintiff appealed that decision and I heard the Registrar’s Appeal on 10 April 2012 and granted the Plaintiff summary judgment. The Defendant has since appealed my decision. These then are the grounds of my decision.
The Case
I should first mention an irregularity that was rectified before me. When I heard the appeal I noted that in respect of this Registrar’s Appeal No. 28, it is under MC Suit No 18296/2011/M, yet the claim was for $60,990. I pointed out to Plaintiff Counsel that it should have been filed in the District Court, being $990 above the Magistrate’s Court’s jurisdiction which apparently parties overlooked. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs applied orally and I granted the application to transfer the proceedings to the District Court. I directed Plaintiff Counsel to take steps thereafter to regularize the pleadings.
The Plaintiffs’ position may be simply set out as follows: The engagement of the Plaintiffs by the Defendant as agent for the Defendant in the sale of his properties known as No. 108 and No. 110 Owen Road, Singapore (‘the Properties’). It was jointly owned with on Chao Hsi Ming (‘Chao’). Upon procuring a buyer of the Properties the Defendant entered into an Option to Purchase Agreement (‘the Option’) on 20 Dec 2010, with the buyers. Prior to acting for the Defendant as agent or broker, in respect of the Plaintiffs’ commission for the Plaintiffs acting for the Defendant in the sale of the Properties, the parties entered into a Private Sale Service Fee Agreement on 8 Dec 2010 (‘the Fee Agreement’). The Fee Agreements for the Properties are identical. In this action, the Plaintiffs point to and rely on clause 2 of the Fee Agreements in connection with the Properties, to found their claim. Clause 2 of the Fee Agreements provided as follows: “The Vendor(s) hereby agrees to irrevocably instruct their solicitors acting for them in the sale of the property to retain the said fee and GST from the proceeds of the sale of the property and to pay the same to the Agency forthwith upon completion of the sale of property and should any monies paid by the Purchaser(s) be forfeited by the Vendor(s) , then half (1/2) of such forfeited sum shall be paid to the Agency, subject to a maximum equivalent to the said fee and GST. “ Under Clause 1 of the Fee Agreements, the fee payable to the Plaintiffs is fixed at $30,495. In respect of the Properties, around Dec 2010 and Jan 2011, the respective purchasers of the Properties exercised the Option to purchase the Properties. However, the purchases of the Properties, were never completed as it was subsequently aborted by the purchasers. Under both Options, the purchasers paid the Defendant and Chao, 5% as deposit upon exercise of the Option. Subsequently as the Sale was not completed but aborted, the deposit of 5% amounting to $95,000 for each of the Properties were forfeited. Pursuant to the Fee Agreements, the Plaintiffs contend that in these circumstances, Clause 2 of the Fee Agreements, provided that the Defendant is required to pay over ‘½ of the Fee subject to a maximum equivalent to the said fee’....
