Norsiah binte Samat v Neo Poh Guan and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lai Kew Chai J
• Judgment Date: 23 October 2003
• Neutral Citation: [2003] SGHC 260
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Published date: 07 November 2003
• Year: 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Philip Jeyaretnam SC and Ling Tien Wah (Rodyk and Davidson)
• Defendant Counsel: Mrs Margaret George (Koh Ong and Partners)
• Subject Matter: Land,Conveyance,Legal requisitions,Road reserve affected 20.2% of the total area of the property,Whether reply to requisition was satisfactory,Test to be applied in determining whether a reply to requisition was satisfactory,Whether purchaser entitled to rescind the agreement for sale and purchase,Claim for return of 10% deposit.,Sale of land,Contract,One of two lots designated as property to be sold was shaded as land required as a road reserve,Whether sale related to one lot or two lots of land.,Words and Phrases,'Unsatisfactory reply to requisition'
• Citation: [2003] SGHC 260

1 By this Originating Summons the plaintiff is seeking a declaration against the defendants that the plaintiff is entitled to rescind the Agreement for sale and purchase dated 7 November 2002 relating to the sale of the property described as 31 Toh Crescent, Singapore comprising Lot 1011T and 1009A of Mukim 31, Singapore (“the property”) for the sum of $3.1 million. At the conclusion of the hearing, I made the declaration as prayed for. I also ordered the defendants to repay the plaintiff the sum of $310,000 being the deposit of 10% of the purchase price of the property which was paid by the plaintiff to both defendants. I further ordered the defendants to pay interest on the said deposit sum at 4% p.a. with effect from 17 December 2002. The defendants have appealed against my decisions. I now set out the material facts and the reasons for my decisions.

2 The defendants are the registered owners of the property. By an Option to Purchase dated 23 October 2002, the defendants offered to sell to the plaintiff the property for $3.1 million. The plaintiff exercised the Option on 7 November 2002.

3 I shall set out the brief history of the property. It was at one time part of a larger plot of land containing an area of 26,233 square feet and was comprised in Lot 487A of the same Mukim.

4 By a Notice of Grant of Written Permission dated 27 January 1972 issued to the 1^st defendant, the Chief Planner gave notice that permission was granted under section 9(3) of the Planning Act, to subdivide Lot 487A into 3 lots.

5 On 20 April 1972 the defendants purchased Lot 487A and on 28 June 1972 the defendants subdivided Lot 487A into 3 lots. Plot 1 became Lot 1009A on which was erected 31 Toh Crescent, Singapore. The second plot was Lot 1010P on which was erected 35 Toh Crescent. The third plot was named Lot 1011T which was the main driveway leading to both 31 and 35 Toh Crescent, Singapore.

6 On 24 July 1972 the defendants sold 35 Toh Crescent, Singapore erected on Lot 1010P to one Jeganathan Jesudason Isaac.

Undisputed Facts

7 In early 2002 the defendants put the property up for sale. In July, 2002 the plaintiff and her husband visited the property with one Mr Adam Lim and Mr Ishak, who were housing agents from Thomas Lee Realty. The 1^st defendant was present during this visit and answered queries from the plaintiff and her husband through the interpretation of Mr Adam Lim.

8 On 27 September 2002, the defendants through their housing agents ERA advertised in the Straits Times for the sale of the property. The advertisement was in these terms: “TOH CRESC, S/STOREY bunglw. Land approx 16000 sq. ft. Potential for rebuilt. Vacant now. View by appt only. 9028 2268 ERA”.

9 The property is L-shaped and consists of three parts: (1) the main rectangular area of land with the bungalow; (ii) a narrow strip of concrete driveway and (iii) the main driveway connecting the house to the major road known as Toh Crescent, Singapore.

10 On the same day the plaintiff’s husband contacted Ms Christine Chan after seeing the advertisement and thereafter negotiated for the purchase of the property. Just short of a month later, the plaintiff and her husband applied to the DBS Bank for a housing loan of $1 million to purchase the property. The land area of the property was stated as 16,000 sq. ft.

11 On 23 October 2003 the defendants granted to the plaintiff an option to purchase what was described as “31 Toh Crescent, Singapore 507940 ‘the property’” at the price of $3.1 million. The plaintiff paid the ‘Option Money’ of $35,699.70.

12 A title search conducted through the Singapore Titles Automated Registration System on “31 Toh Crescent” revealed that the lot on which the building is erected contained the land area of approximately 12,762 sq. ft. instead of the 16,000 sq. ft. advertised and represented by the defendants.

13 On 24 October 2002 the plaintiff’s solicitor, Ms Chui Yin Yen, contacted one Ms Josephine Low from the defendants’ office to inquire on the discrepancy in the land area. On the same day, the plaintiff’s husband enquired of Ms Christine Chan of ERA. Ms Christine Chan likewise assured the plaintiff’s husband that the subject land and premises under the Option included the main driveway and not only the plot of land on which the bungalow was erected. Ms Christine Chan faxed a plan of the property to the plaintiff’s husband.

14 By the letter of 25 October, 2002 Koh Ong & Partners, the defendants’ solicitors, referred to the said conversation and they wrote “to confirm that:- 1. The sale price of the above property comprises Lots 1009A and 1011T, Mukim 31”

15 On 7 November 2002 the plaintiff exercised the Option to purchase...