Tan Soo Leng David v Wee Satku & Kumar Pte Ltd and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Judith Prakash J
• Judgment Date: 25 October 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 266
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 266
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1997
• Docket Number: Suit No 1860 of 1992
• Date: 25 October 1997
• Subject Matter: Whether clause valid,Sale subject to consent of third party,Wrongful lodgment,Third party refusing to consent,Declaratory relief,Clause stipulating that sale subject to consent of developers of property,Discretion of court to grant declarations,Restraints on dealings,O 15 r 16 Rules of the Supreme Court 1970,s 139(1) Land Titles Act (Cap 157),Whether purchaser wrong to lodge caveat,Whether purchaser has locus standi for declaratory relief against third party in absence of legal relationship,Third party proceedings,Land,Option rescinded,Whether void as a restraint on right to alienate,Duty of vendor to show all reasonable steps to obtain consent have been taken,Caveats,Sale of land,Whether Instrument of Restriction must be registered for restriction to be binding,Whether caveat allowed to remain wrongfully -s 112(1) Land Titles Act (Cap 157),Sale of property subject to consent of third party,Stipulation in agreement between developer and owner that subsequent sale of property be subject to developer's consent,Alternate duty to show impossibility of obtaining consent,Civil Procedure,Conditions of sale,Whether validity of clause dependent on restrictive covenant in principal agreement between vendor and developer,Restrictive covenants,Registration of restriction,Whether rescission on ground that consent was refused valid,Rescission by vendor,What constitute reasonable efforts
• Plaintiff Counsel: Harry Elias SC, Devinder Rai and Looi Teck Kheong (Harry Elias &Partners)
• Defendant Counsel: Chua Lee Ming and Tan Kian Siew (Lee & Lee),K Shanmugam and Maria Ho (Allen & Gledhill)