Ng Chee Chong and Another v Toh Kouw and Another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Goh Joon Seng J |
Judgment Date | 12 July 1999 |
Neutral Citation | [1999] SGCA 51 |
Citation | [1999] SGCA 51 |
Date | 12 July 1999 |
Year | 1999 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Cheah Kok Lim (Michael Khoo & Partners) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 6 of 1999 |
Defendant Counsel | Ramesh Appoo (S Narayanan & Partners) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Published date | 19 September 2003 |
(delivering the grounds of judgment of the court): In this case, the appellants` claim against the respondents for damages for breaching a contract for the sale and purchase of a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat, was struck out on the ground that the appellants` conduct was frivolous and/or vexatious and/or an abuse of the process of the court. We allowed the appellants` appeal against the striking out order and now give the reasons for our decision.
Background
On 16 July 1997, the appellants contracted to sell their HDB flat in Choa Chu Kang to the respondents for $568,000. Under the terms of the contract for sale and purchase, the respondents were required to pay the appellants a deposit of $5,000 immediately upon signing the contract. Clause 6 of the contract further provided that the respondents were to apply to the HDB for the requisite approval of the purchase of the said flat within 90 days, that is by 14 October 1997.
Two days after signing the contract, the respondents informed the appellants that they did not intend to proceed with the purchase of the flat and that they did not intend to pay the $5,000 deposit, which had, to date, not been paid.
On 28 July 1997, the appellants` solicitors wrote to the respondents to demand the payment of the deposit of $5,000 and to place on record that the appellants regarded the respondents` intimation that they would not proceed with the purchase of the flat as an anticipatory breach of the contract. The respondents, who were informed that the appellants accepted this repudiation of the contract, were further informed that they would be held liable for any loss of profit suffered by the appellants if the flat was subsequently sold at a lower price than that offered by the respondents.
On 14 August 1997, the appellants commenced an action in the magistrate`s court for the recovery of the $5,000 deposit. On 23 October 1997, they obtained summary judgment for the amount claimed.
On 23 September 1997, the appellants` solicitors informed the respondents that prospective purchasers had offered to pay $535,000 for the flat. On 2 October 1997, the respondents were informed that unless they were in a position to have the flat sold at a higher price, the flat would be sold for $535,000. The respondents did not respond to these letters and the flat was sold for $535,000 on 5 October 1997.
On 27 October 1997, the appellants` solicitors wrote to the respondents` solicitors to demand the payment of $30,500. This sum included the appellants` loss of profit and the property agent`s commission for introducing the new purchaser to the appellants. As the respondents refused to pay the sum demanded, the appellants commenced DC Suit No 5113 of 1997 against the respondents on 25 November 1997.
On 20 January 1998, the respondents applied to have the appellants` statement of claim struck out with costs under O 18 r 19(1)(b) and (d) of the Rules of Court 1996 on the ground that the appellants` conduct was `frivolous and/or vexatious and/or an abuse of the process of the court`. The respondents pointed out that the appellants` claim in both suits arose out of the same breach of the contract for the sale and purchase of the HDB flat and that the appellants had already been awarded the sum of $5,000 for this breach of contract. The appellants` claim was struck out by the deputy registrar on 2 March 1998.
The appellants succeeded in their appeal against the deputy registrar`s decision. On 9 April 1998, the District Judge set aside the striking out order made on 2 March 1998. The respondents appealed to the High Court.
The proceedings below
The learned judge said that the question which arose in the appeal before him was `whether the first action for the recovery of the $5,000 deposit [estopped the appellants] from initiating or maintaining the second action for recovery of damages`.
The learned judge accepted that the cause of action founded on the accrued liability to pay the deposit was distinct from that arising from the wrongful repudiation of the contract as a whole. As such, the appellants` two suits involved two different causes of action. However, relying on Henderson v Henderson [1843] 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313 and Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd & Anor [1975] AC 581, his Honour held that the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Chia Ah Sng v Hong Leong Finance Ltd
... ... Leong had commenced proceedings in connection with another entirely unconnected loan transaction with another ... Singapore cases ... Ng Chee Chong & Anor v Toh Kouw & Anor ... [1999] 4 SLR 45 ... ...
-
Ram Thayalan Raman Siv and Another v Liew Yap Tong trading as Tong Heng Motor Work
... ... Singapore Court of Appeal in Ng Chee Hong & another v Toh Kouw and another ... (Civil Appeal No 6 of 1999). The Court of Appeal ... 23. It seemed to me that in the case of Ng ... Chee Chong , the same plaintiffs were suing twice on the same transaction. This was a ... fact different from ... ...
-
Lee Hiok Tng (in her personal capacity) v Lee Hiok Tng and another (executors and trustees fo the estate of Lee Wee Nam, deceased) and Others
...County Council [1994] QB 290 at 296, Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd & Anor [1975] AC 581, Ng Chee Chong v Toh Kouw [1999] 4 SLR 45, Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit [2000] 1 SLR 51, Greenhalgh v Mallard [1947] 2 All ER 255 at 257 (2) However, in determining whether a case falls......
-
Lee Hiok Tng (in her personal capacity) v Lee Hiok Tng and another (executors and trustees fo the estate of Lee Wee Nam, deceased) and Others
...County Council [1994] QB 290 at 296, Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd & Anor [1975] AC 581, Ng Chee Chong v Toh Kouw [1999] 4 SLR 45, Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit [2000] 1 SLR 51, Greenhalgh v Mallard [1947] 2 All ER 255 at 257 (2) However, in determining whether a case falls......