Lee Peter Michael v Tacplus Property Services Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 30 November 1998
• Date: 30 November 1998
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 611 of 1998
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Lee Peter Michael

Plaintiff

and

Tacplas Property Services Pte Ltd

Defendant

[1998] SGHC 394

Lee Seiu Kin JC

Originating Summons No 611 of 1998

High Court

Land—Sale of land—Agreement to sell land after six years from death of owner—Clause in agreement making completion subject to approval of court—Whether agreement falls under s 35 (2) Conveyancing and Law of Property Act—Section 35 (2) Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed)—Probate and Administration—Grant of letters of administration—Joint administrators appointed—Agreement for sale of property made by one administrator—Whether one administrator in joint administration acting alone can bind estate—Section 6 (1) Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 1985 Rev Ed)

The plaintiff was the son of one Martin Lee (“Martin?). Martin and his sister Christina Lee (“Christina?) were appointed joint administrators of their father’s estate (“the estate?) in 1971 pursuant to court order. Martin suffered a severe stroke in 1989, and was found to be mentally incapable of handling his affairs by the court on 10 August 1994. The plaintiff was subsequently appointed as joint administrator of the estate with Christina, in 1996. Christina entered into an agreement with the defendant to sell a piece of property belonging to the estate on 23 February 1994. The plaintiff applied for a declaration that the agreement was not binding, on the grounds that Christina could not bind the estate without the consent of Martin, who was the co-administrator and mentally incapable at the time of making a decision. A second ground of challenge was that no sanction of court for the sale of the property had been obtained.

Held, allowing plaintiff’s application:

(1) The agreement was not a sale as defined in s 35 (2) of the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed), as the completion was expressly stated in the agreement as being subject to approval of the court. Hence the second ground of challenge by the plaintiff had no merit: at [6].

(2) An administrator was appointed by the court and it was in the nature of an office, the consequences of which was that where joint administrators were appointed, they must act jointly. This position was also consistent with s 6 (1) of the Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 1985 Rev Ed), which required at least two administrators to be appointed where there was a minority or life interest under the will. This provision was obviously for the protection of such beneficiaries, and could only be effective if the administrators were required by law to act jointly: at [18] and [19].

Bell v Timiswood (1812) 2 Phill Ecc 22; 161 ER 1066 (folld)

Chay Chong Hwa v Seah Mary [1983-1984] SLR (R) 505; [1984-1985] SLR 183, CA (folld)

Chay Chong Hwa v Seah Mary [1985-1986] SLR (R) 991; [1986] SLR 48, PC (folld)

Earl of Warwick v Greville (1809) 1 Phill Ecc 123; 161 ER 934 (folld)

Fountain Forestry Ltd v Edwards [1975] Ch 1 (refd)

Hudson v Hudson (1737) 1 Atk 460; 26 ER 292 (folld)

Smith v Everett (1859) 29 LJ Ch 236 (refd)

Sneesby v Thorne (1855) 7 De G M & G 399; 44 ER 156 (refd)

Stanley v Bernes (1830) 1 Hagg Ecc 221; 162 ER 564 (folld)

Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed)s 35 (2) (consd)

Probate and Administration Act (Cap 251, 1985 Rev Ed)s 6 (1) (consd)

Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1994 (c 36) (UK) s 16

Lok Vi Ming (Rodyk & Davidson) for the appellant

George Pereira (Pereira & Tan) for the respondent.

Lee Seiu Kin JC

1 Lee Chong Miow (“the deceased?) died intestate on 4 July 1969. On 1 March 1971 the deceased’s son, Martin Lee, filed a petition for letters of administration of the deceased’s estate (“the estate?), to be granted jointly to himself and his sister, Christina Lee. On 12 March 1971 the court made the order appointing them as administrators. However the grant was never extracted. Sometime in 1989 Martin Lee suffered a severe stroke. On 10 August 1994 the court found Martin Lee to be mentally incapable of handling his affairs and appointed his son, the plaintiff, and the plaintiff’s wife, Suzanne Liau, as the Committee of his Person and Estate. On 13 August 1996, in Probate No 78 of 1971, the court granted letters of administration to the plaintiff and Christina Lee as joint administrators of the deceased’s estate.

2 This summons relates to one of the properties in the estate, viz the land comprising Lot 91-81 Mukim 28 (“the property?). On 23 February 1994, Christina Lee entered into an agreement (“the agreement?) with the defendants for the sale and purchase of the property for the sum of $2m, subject to certain conditions. The preamble to the agreement states as follows:

This agreement is made [on 23 February 1994] between Christina Lee (hereinafter called ‘the vendor’) … a personal representative of [the deceased] … and Tacplus Property Services Pte Ltd … (hereinafter called ‘the purchaser’) …

3 Apart from the usual clauses relating to title and requisitions, special conditions were included in the agreement because of the history of the property. That history is adequately set out in cl 8 which states as follows:

1. (1) The purchaser is aware that by a judgment dated 30 September 1993 in OS 156/1990, commenced by Wama bte Buang (hereinafter called ‘the respondent’) it was declared, inter alia, that all the rights and title of the deceased, his personal representatives or any persons claiming under him to the property or the recovery thereof have been extinguished by virtue of the provisions of ss 9 and 18 of the Limitation Act (Cap 163) and that the vendor has appealed against the judgment in CA 127/93 (hereinafter called ‘the appeal’).

2. (2) The appeal shall be conducted by M/s Pereira & Tan … and their costs on a solicitor and client basis shall be borne wholly by the purchaser.

3. (3) (i) In the event that the appeal is dismissed, all costs payable to the respondent on a party and party basis shall be borne wholly by the purchaser. The purchaser undertakes within two weeks from the date hereof to provide security to the vendor up to the limit of $120,000 in respect of the said costs. Any taxation of such costs shall be conducted on behalf of the vendor by M/s Pereira & Tan.

4. (3) (ii) The deposit shall be repaid forthwith to the purchaser without interest in the event...