Poh Choon Kia and another v Lim Hoe Heng and another
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Tay Yong Kwang J |
Judgment Date | 26 April 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] SGHC 88 |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 767 of 2011 |
Date | 26 April 2012 |
Published date | 07 May 2012 |
Year | 2012 |
Plaintiff Counsel | A. Thamilselvan (Subra TT Law LLC) |
Citation | [2012] SGHC 88 |
Defendant Counsel | Nirmal Singh (S K Kumar Law Practice LLP),Jimmy Yap (Jimmy Yap & Co) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Subject Matter | wrongful lodgment,damages,specific performance,caveats,Land,Contract,remedies |
This dispute concerns the sale of a Housing Development Board (“HDB”) maisonette at Block 121 Potong Pasir Avenue 1 #11-273 Singapore 350121 (“the flat”) by the first defendant to the plaintiffs. The second defendant, a Chinese national, is the wife of the first defendant. In this originating summons, the plaintiffs seek an order for specific performance of the option to purchase against the first defendant. The plaintiffs also seek late completion interest and damages and other consequential orders. In respect of the second defendant, the plaintiffs seek an order for her to withdraw her caveat lodged against the flat within five days of the order by the court.
At the first hearing on 24 November 2011, the defendants were separately represented by solicitors. However, the solicitor for the second defendant was not able to obtain instructions from the second defendant who was not in Singapore. After hearing arguments by the parties that day, I granted the orders sought by the plaintiffs and directed that the sale be completed within three months from the date of the order. I awarded late completion interest but did not award any damages to the plaintiffs as they were unable to prove that they had suffered such. I ordered the second defendant to withdraw her caveat within two weeks from the date of the order and made certain consequential orders as between the first and the second defendants as they were in the midst of their matrimonial dispute. I also ordered costs of $7,000 (which included disbursements) against the defendants for this originating summons and the plaintiffs’ application for leave to commence legal proceedings against the first defendant because of his bankruptcy.
At the first defendant’s request, I heard further arguments on 6 February 2012 on the issue of the late completion interest. The second defendant’s newly instructed solicitors (M/s Goh JP & Wong) were unable to attend this further hearing but agreed to abide by whatever order the court made. The first defendant was not able to persuade me to change my decision on the issue canvassed. As the plaintiffs’ solicitors were willing to waive costs for the further arguments, no order on costs was made.
On 2 March 2012, the first defendant filed an appeal against my decision relating to the issues of the late completion interest and the costs of the proceedings.
The factsThe second plaintiff, a divorcee, filed two affidavits. Both plaintiffs are housing agents. They had planned to get married on 13 November 2011 and therefore started looking for a matrimonial home sometime in December 2010.
In January 2011, they went to view the flat. The first defendant is the registered sole owner of the flat while the second defendant was the registered occupier. After negotiation with the first defendant, a purchase price of $645,000 was agreed. Subsequently, they found out about the first defendant’s bankruptcy and wondered whether they could purchase the flat from him.
On 14 January 2011, the plaintiffs and the first defendant went to the HDB branch office in Toa Payoh. There, a HDB officer told them that the first defendant was in arrears on the loan owing to the HDB and that he had to sell the flat in the open market or surrender it to the HDB. The officer also told the plaintiffs that they were eligible to purchase the flat. The first defendant then said he could get the second defendant’s consent to sell the flat.
An option to purchase the flat was given by the first defendant on 15 January 2011. The plaintiffs proceeded to obtain a bank loan to purchase the flat. On 21 January 2011, they exercised the option. The relevant clauses of the option are as follows:
...
“Completion Date” means the date on which completion of the sale and purchase of the Flat is to take place in accordance with Clause 12;
...
…
...
...
…
...
…
...
...
The relevant conditions from the Law Society’s Conditions of Sale 1999 (“LSCS”), referred to in Clause 9.3(e) of the option above, are as follows:
he must pay interest (as liquidated damages) commencing on the day following the date fixed for completion up to and including the day of actual completion. Interest will be calculated on the purchase price at 10% per annum.
No interest (as liquidated damages) will be payable if the delay in completion is due to some cause other than the default of the Vendor or the Purchaser or to the default of both the Vendor and the Purchaser.
…
...
If the Vendor does not comply with the terms of an effective notice served by the Purchaser under this Condition, then the Purchaser may elect either –
Subsequently, the HDB fixed the first appointment for the sale and purchase of the flat on 25 February 2011. That day, the HDB scheduled the completion to take place on 8 April 2011. A letter from the HDB dated 25 Feb 2011 was sent after the meeting stating the...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Lim Hoe Heng v Poh Choon Kia
...and costs. The Judge's grounds of decision 19 On 26 April 2012, the Judge issued his grounds of decision in Poh Choon Kia v Lim Hoe Heng [2012] 3 SLR 268 (‘the GD’). The Judge found that the date for completion of the sale was 8 April 2011, as stated in the February Letter. In his view, thi......
-
Lim Hoe Heng v Poh Choon Kia and another
...Grounds of Decision On 26 April 2012, the Judge issued his grounds of decision in Poh Choon Kia and another v Lim Hoe Heng and another [2012] 3 SLR 268 (“the GD”). The Judge found that the date for completion of the sale was 8 April 2011, as stated in the February Letter. In his view, this ......
-
Land Law
...even if they were entitled to make the claim as beneficiaries of the Estate on behalf of the Estate. 20.53 Poh Choon Kia v Lim Hoe Heng[2012] 3 SLR 268 was concerned with the legality of a caveat lodged by the second defendant, among others. The plaintiffs had exercised an option to purchas......