United Indo-Singapura Corp Pte Ltd v Foo See Juan and Another

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Wee Chong Jin CJ
• Judgment Date: 20 September 1984
• Neutral Citation: [1984] SGHC 27
• Date: 20 September 1984
• Subject Matter: Failure to make known contents of letter to clients,Striking out amended writ and statement of claim,Whether solicitors liable,Tort,Particular causes of action,s 29 Limitation Act (Cap 10),Causation,Negligence,triking out amended writ and statement of claim,Limitation,Limitation of Actions,s 5 Land Acquisition Act (Cap 272)
• Docket Number: Suit No 2474 of 1982
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: S Rajendran (Khattar Wong & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Samuel Julius Sher QC and Lim Chor Pee (Chor Pee & Co)

The defendants are the partners of Messrs Foo & Quek, a firm of solicitors. The plaintiffs, on 5 March 1974 exercised an option to purchase, subject to contract, premises known as 37, Telok Ayer Street, Singapore (the property) from City Developments Ltd (the vendors) for whom the defendants were acting.

After the exercise of the option, the plaintiffs instructed the defendants` firm to act for them also in their proposed purchase of the property. As the plaintiffs` solicitors the defendants` firm wrote to the Urban Renewal Department of the Housing and Development Board on 5 March 1974 to inquire whether the property was in an area earmarked for urban renewal. On 14 March 1974 that department replied stating the property was in an area `under study for comprehensive development`. The defendants did not inform the plaintiffs of the contents of the Urban Renewal Department`s letter of 14 March 1974 nor did they advise the plaintiffs as to the implications of that letter and the likelihood that all or part of the property would be compulsorily acquired in the near future. The plaintiffs allege that in failing to so advise them the defendants were in breach of duty and as a consequence the plaintiffs have suffered damage. The defendants` firm asked for an interpretation of that term and in reply that department stated: `Based on our Department`s policy our reply of 14 March 1974 stands`. Although that reply was dated 29 March 1974 it was not received by the defendants` firm until 3 April 1974. That reply was also not made known to the plaintiffs by the defendants.

Before that reply was received the defendants proceeded to arrange for the plaintiffs to exchange contracts with the vendors on or before 3 April 1974 for the purchase of the property. The terms, (so far as material) of the contract were:

Clause 2 which so far as material reads:

The purchase price of $2,700,000 shall be paid by the Purchaser to the vendor in the following manner:

(a) Immediately on signing of this Agreement a sum of $270,000.

(b) On or before 30 June 1974 $270,000.

(c) On or before 30 June 1975 $432,000.

(d) On or before 30 June 1976 $432,000.

(e) On or before 30 June 1977 $432,000.

(f) On or before 30 June 1978 $432,000,

(g) On or before 30 June 1979 $432,000.

PROVIDED the Purchaser may pay any sum in excess of the yearly instalments referred to in (c) to (g) above and any such payments shall be adjusted accordingly from the last instalment.

AND PROVIDED ALSO the payments stipulated above shall not prejudice any rights which the vendor may have under any subsequent clauses of this Agreement in case of non-payment of any of the instalments aforesaid.

Clause 13 reads:

Without limiting or restricting cl 11 herein it is hereby declared the property is sold subject to any Notices of intended acquisition or acquisition by the Government or other Competent Authority and in the event the Government or other Competent Authority acquiring the property or part thereof after the date of this Agreement but before the actual date of completion the Purchaser shall not be entitled to rescind this Agreement.

Clause 14 reads:

Notwithstanding cl 2 herein should the property be acquired by the Government or other Competent Authority the Purchaser shall forthwith complete the purchase.

The plaintiffs, pursuant to the contract, entered into possession and paid to the vendors the instalments due and also affected improvements and alterations to the property.

On 15 November 1975 the vovernment by a Gazette

notification gave notice under s 5 of the Land Acquisition Act of the intended compulsory acquisition of the property. Subsequently the government acquired the property and the Collector made his award on 18 June 1977 of $1,261,000. On appeal, the award was increased by $620,610.96.

The facts outlined were pleaded in the amended statement of claim endorsed in the amended writ of summons taken out by the plaintiffs against the defendants on 19 June 1982. Their cause of action was in tort - the tort of negligence. The defendants now apply to strike out the amended statement of claim on the grounds that it discloses no reasonable cause of action against them, or alternatively, is frivolous or vexatious, or,...