Lee Siew Wah and Another v Quek Tong Huat and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Kan Ting Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 20 January 1999
• Neutral Citation: [1999] SGHC 18
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1999
• Published date: 05 March 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Barker (Khattar Wong & Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Robert Wee (Ho & Wee)
• Citation: [1999] SGHC 18

Judgment :

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. The plaintiffs contracted to buy an apartment from the defendants. The apartment is unit #11-01 Curzon Lodge, 100 Kampong Java Road. Curzon Lodge is a development consisting of a 11-storey building divided into 20 flats and grounds containing car park lots, swimming and wading pools, bin centre and other facilities.

2. The contract contained a "requisition clause" in clause 10 that

The sale and purchase herein shall be subject to the Purchaser’s solicitors receiving satisfactory replies to their legal requisitions and applications for interpretation Plans to the various Government Departments and Land Transport Authority (LTA) insofar as such replies/interpretation Plans relate to the property and if any of such replies and/or interpretation Plans are found to be unsatisfactory then this Agreement may be rescinded at the Purchaser’s option and in such event the Vendor shall forthwith refund to the Purchaser all monies paid by the Purchaser to the Vendor or to the Vendor’s solicitors but without any interest compensation or deductions whatsoever and thereupon neither party shall then have any claim or demand against the other for costs damages compensation or otherwise. Provided always that:-

(a) the answers from the Property Tax Department, Environmental Health, Public Works and Sewerage Departments and Building Control Division shall not be deemed unsatisfactory unless the same disclose that the property is affected by any notice or order which has not been complied with and which is incapable of being complied with by the Vendor before completion;

(b) any Category 5 road proposals or lines (whether actual or proposed) affecting the property shall not be construed as unsatisfactory.

(c) any road or drainage line or proposal which is to be implemented only if there is any redevelopment of the property shall be deemed satisfactory.

(d) any replay to legal requisitions not received by the date fixed for completion shall be deemed satisfactory.

3. The plaintiffs’ solicitors sent out the usual requisitions and received from the Land Transport Authority a Road Interpretation Plan which showed a line of tunnel reserve running through the grounds of Curzon Lodge along the whole length of its frontage along Kampong Java Road, although it will not impinge on the flats. The plan stated that the area within the line of tunnel reserve is "Land required for new road/road improvement which forms part of he national road network." The authority also informed the defendants’ solicitors that "The land required for new road which forms part of the national network may be acquired when the road proposal is implemented" but did not say when the acquisition would take place.

4. The plaintiffs were anxious over the plan, and appointed architects and surveyors to advise them on the implications. They were informed that

(i) the area affected was 824.5 sq. m of the entire land area of Curzon Lodge of 2765.9 sq. m, or 29.8% of it,

(ii) the entry and exit road will have to be resited and the boundary wall/fence will have to be constructed,

(iii) all 12 surface car park lots are affected, leaving 8 basement car park lots,

(iv) the...