Lee Suat Hong v Teo Lye

Judgment Date25 February 1987
Date25 February 1987
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 49 of 1986
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Lee Suat Hong
Plaintiff
and
Teo Lye
Defendant

[1987] SGCA 4

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

A P Rajah J

and

Chan Sek Keong JC

Civil Appeal No 49 of 1986

Court of Appeal

Civil Procedure–Appeals–Finding of fact by trial judge–Principles on which appellate court may interfere–Whether distinction drawn between trial judge's finding of fact and drawing of inference–Equity–Estoppel–Promissory estoppel–Estoppel by acquiescence–Owner of land consented to respondent building house on land–Respondent expended money in building house–Whether extent of respondent's equity permanently protected her occupation of land–Equity–Estoppel–Promissory estoppel–Proper approach for court to take–Whether representation made to respondent–Extent of equity established by estoppel–Manner in which equity could be best satisfied

The appellant had sued the respondent for possession of the premises at 38A Lorong Puntong (“38A”), together with arrears of rent and mesne profits from 1 February 1983 and costs. The appellant alleged that the respondent had been in possession of 38A as his tenant and that the tenancy had been terminated by a notice to quit which expired on 31 January 1983.

The respondent claimed an equitable estoppel in her favour, and contended that she was entitled to stay at 38A, where she and her family had resided since about 1956, permanently. The respondent alleged that the appellant's predecessor-in-title had represented to the respondent and her family that if they gave up possession of a plot of land at Mukim 15, the respondent and her family could erect their own house on 38A and stay on 38A for as long as they deemed fit.

At the first instance, the trial judge found that the respondent did not actually know the terms of occupation of 38A, or the terms under which her husband was allowed to build the house at 38A. The trial judge thus found that no expectation that the respondent could stay at 38A permanently had been created.

The respondent successfully appealed to the High Court. The High Court found that an equitable estoppel had been established, and held that this estoppel protected the respondent and her family's occupation of 38A permanently.

The appellant appealed.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) Where the defendant raises equitable estoppel to restrict the plaintiff from exercising his legal rights as landowner, the proper approach is to inquire first, whether any equitable estoppel exists, and if so, the extent of the equity established by the estoppel, before considering how best that equity may be satisfied: at [13].

(2) No expectation had been created that the respondent would be allowed to stay at 38A permanently. The court would not disturb the trial judge's finding of fact in this regard. This was because the finding of fact in this case related to a finding of a specific fact (ie whether the representation as alleged by the respondent had been made) and not to the drawing of an inference. While an appellate court would be more willing to form an independent opinion upon the proper inference to be drawn, it would be extremely reluctant to reject the trial judge's finding in this case, as the finding...

To continue reading

Request your trial
6 cases
  • Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 10 May 2013
    ...Mye [1971-1973] SLR (R) 107; [1969-1971] SLR 494 (refd) Koh Cheong Heng v Ho Yee Fong [2011] 3 SLR 125 (folld) Lee Suat Hong v Teo Lye [1987] SLR (R) 70; [1987] SLR 34 (refd) Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MSCT Plan No 301 [2005] 3 SLR (R) 157; [2005] 3 SLR 157 (folld) Ong Beng Chong v Goh K......
  • Ong Beng Chong v Jayaram Victoria and Another Matter
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 24 March 2009
    ...local cases Khew Ah Bah v Hong Ah Mye [1969-1971] SLR 494, Lim Hock Kim v Sim Seng Quee [1980-1981] SLR 316 and Lee Suat Hong v Teo Lye [1987] SLR 34. I was of the view that none of the cases cited by his counsel assisted the plaintiff as a review of the cases will 46 C Paul D’Cruz v Chow T......
  • Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence (administrator of the estate of Tan Ah Kng, deceased)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 10 May 2013
    ...terminating the tenancy; he must also satisfy the equity. The second case was the Court of Appeal decision of Lee Suat Hong v Teo Lye [1987] SLR(R) 70, where it was held at [13] In our view, in cases such as this where the defendant raises equitable estoppel to restrict the plaintiff from e......
  • Ong Beng Chong v Commissioner of Stamp Duties
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 5 April 2019
    ...equity in the Houses without being compensated for the money expended in building or purchasing the Houses (see Lee Suat Hong v Teo Lye [1987] SLR(R) 70 at [22]). This equity may be satisfied in various ways and in this instance, it was best satisfied by way of monetary compensation (See Lo......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
1 books & journal articles
  • Land Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2010, December 2010
    • 1 December 2010
    ...lease runs out in the year 2883. 19.16 Having regard to Khew Ah Bah v Hong Ah Mye [1971-1973] SLR(R) 107 and Lee Suat Hong v Teo Lye [1987] SLR(R) 70, the High Court found no evidence of representations of any kind made by the plaintiff or his predecessors in title to the previous owners of......

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