Huang Ching Hwee v Heng Kay Pah and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Goh Joon Seng J
• Judgment Date: 07 December 1990
• Neutral Citation: [1990] SGHC 105
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 949 of 1990
• Date: 07 December 1990
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1990
• Plaintiff Counsel: Foo Soon Yien (Barnard Rada & Lee)
• Citation: [1990] SGHC 105
• Defendant Counsel: Johns Berny (Johns & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether unauthorized renovations a latent defect in title entitling purchaser to rescind sale and purchase agreement,Whether renovations required approval of Building Authority,Conveyance,Defect in title,Land,Vendor carried out renovations

Cur Adv Vult

The plaintiff is the owner of all that piece or parcel of land known as lot 31-80 mk 17 with the house erected thereon and known as No 4 Joan Road, Singapore (hereinafter referred to as ` the said property` ). He purchased it on 2 October 1989.

By an option dated 11 May 1990 the plaintiff in consideration of the sum of $25,000 granted to the defendants an option to purchase the said property at the price of $2,500,000. The said option was exercised by the defendants on 1 June 1990 whereupon the sum of $225,000 being balance of 10% deposit less the option fee of $25,000 was paid to the plaintiff` s solicitors as stakeholders pending completion, 24 August 1990 being the completion date.

On 12 June 1990 the defendants` solicitor wrote to the plaintiff` s solicitors enclosing the usual requisitions (exh HKP1 annexed to the affidavit of Heng Kay Pah and Yang Mee Leng filed on 28 September 1990) and stating:

We understand from our clients that your client after his purchase of the abovementioned property carried out extension renovation/alterations/additions to the building on the said property. If so please let us have the approved plan in respect of such renovation/additions/alterations carried out.

The requisitions were returned on 20 June 1990. On the pertinent question ` Have there been any renovations, additions or alterations made to the property?` , the answer was ` Please make your own searches.`

Similar answer was given to the further question: ` If there have been, were the necessary approvals thereof obtained from the competent authority? Please give particulars and replies of any approvals obtained.`

On 25 June 1990 the plaintiff` s solicitors reverted on the renovations: ` We are instructed by our client that he has only carried out renovations to the interior of the property and does not have any plans in respect of the said renovations.`

On 2 July 1990 the defendants` solicitors wrote to the plaintiff` s solicitors on this issue:

You have stated that your client carried out renovations to the interior of the property and that your client does not have any plans in respect of such renovations. However please let us know the nature of the renovations done to the interior of the property.

On 19 July 1990 the plaintiff` s solicitors replied:

We refer to your letter dated 2 July 1990 and are instructed by our client that he has carried out the following renovations to the above property -

(1) new roofing and tiles, to external of dining and kitchen areas, inclusive of ceramic tiling to floor;

(2) patio to change only roofing to pitch with roof tiles, to match and ceramictiling to floor;

(3) new toilet for servant` s room complete with aluminium sliding doors and sanitary fittings;

(4) replace all soil pipes and external piping to stainless steel pipes;

(5) replace soil pipes to front and back garden;

(6) turfing to front and back garden;

(7) decorative fins to all windows for the above property; and

(8) construct railing to master bedroom balcony.

It is to be noted that most of the above works are external rather than internal.

On 20 July 1990 the defendants` solicitors wrote to the plaintiff` s solicitors enclosing a draft transfer for approval and referred to para 3 of their letter of 2 July 1990 requesting for plans for alterations carried out by the previous owner and approved on 10 August 1985.

On 25 July 1990 the plaintiff` s solicitors replied stating:

... We are instructed by our client that he does not have the approved plans. That is for those works carried out by the previous owner.

On 28 July 1990 the defendant` s solicitor wrote to the plaintiff` s solicitors stating:

With reference to your letter of 19 July 1990, we note under item (3) therein relates to a ` new toilet` . If it is an addition please confirm that the necessary approval has been applied and obtained. Kindly let us have the approved plan in respect of the ` new toilet` .

Receiving no reply on the new toilet, the defendant` s solicitor again raised this matter by letter of 8 August 1990 requiring to be furnished with:

(g) Approved plan or copy thereof in respect of the new toilet. However, if the new toilet referred to in your letter of 19 July 1990 is not a new structure or an addi tion please confirm that the ` new toilet` referred to was an existing structure that has been renovated and hence no approval is required from the relevant authorities.

Still receiving no reply on the new toilet the defendants` solicitor on 13 August 1990 wrote to the plaintiff` s solicitors referring in particular to the new toilet. This pre cipitated a reply from the plaintiff` s solicitors on 14 August 1990 stating:

Kindly be informed that the toilet referred to in para 3(g) of your letter is an existing toilet and no approval is required from the relevant authority.

On the same day, the plaintiff` s solicitors wrote to the Chief Assessor:

We are instructed by our client to inform you that he has not carried out any of the actions listed in the said return.

This obviously could not be true given the list of renovations admitted to have been carried out vide their letter of 19 July 1990 quoted above.

On 20 August 1990 the first defendant, his solicitor and one Raymond Kuah Leong Heng, a registered architect, inspected the said property from outside the gate. The said Raymond Kuah Leong Heng was involved in the renovations carried out by the previ ous owner. His name appeared on the plan approved on 20 August 1985 which plan the defendants were eventually able to obtain from the Building Authority. Based on the advice of the said Raymond Kuah Leong Heng, the defendants` solicitor wrote to the plaintiff` s solicitors on 21 August 1990 stating that the following works carried out by the plaintiff required planning approval:

(1) the roof over the patio;

(2) the mono-pitch roof to the main entrance;

(3) the demolition of the garage and servant` s room including the toilets;

(4) the metal structure where the garage, servant` s room and toilets stood;

(5) the demolition of the covered roofing structure at the rear;

(6) the railing at rear flat terrace over lounge;

(7) the timber fence;

(8) the tinted aluminium glass panes at lounge area;

(9) the toilet in the servant` s room;

(10) the treatment of window surrounds;

(11) the new roofing to external of dining and kitchen area.

The external alterations on the front portion of the building can be seen by a comparison of the photograph taken in June 1989 and that taken in May 1990 being collectively marked as exh ` HKP2` annexed to the affidavit of the defendants filed on 28 September 1990. The defendants thereupon rescinded the sale and purchase agreement and demanded the refund of the 10% deposit.

The plaintiff denies that the defendants are entitled to rescind the same and files these proceedings for a declaration that the defendants are not entitled to rescind the agreement of sale and purchase and for other consequential orders.

The issues are therefore:

(1) did the plaintiff` s renovation works require approval of the Building Authority; and

(2) if they did and no approval was obtained would that constitute a defect in title entitling the defendants to rescind.

On (1), ` building works` in so far as it relates to this matter has been defined in s 2(1) of the Building Control Act (Cap 29, 1990 Ed) (the Act) as:

(a) the erection, extension or demolition of a building;

(b) the alteration, addition or repair of a building;

There is no doubt that the renovations listed in the defendants` letter of 21 August 1990 were ` building works` within the meaning of s 2 of the Act.

Section 5 of the Act provides:

Except as otherwise provided in this Act, no person shall commence or carry out or permit or authorize the commencement or carrying out of any building works unless -

(a) the Building Authority has approved all the plans of the building works under section 6; and

(b) there is in force a permit granted by the Building Authority under section 7 to carry out the building works shown in the approved plans of the building works.

By virtue of s 4 of the Act, the requirement under s 5 does not apply to temporary buildings and building works enumerated in the Schedule to the Act. The Schedule does not apply to the works herein. Hence the renovation works carried out required the approval of the Building Authority.

On (2), since approval was required but no such approval was obtained these works were unauthorized. Consequently, under s 13(1), the Building...