Tiessen Trading v Collector of Land Revenue: Land Acquisition Compensation Dispute
Tiessen Trading Pte Ltd appealed to the Court of Appeal of Singapore against the decision of the Land Acquisition Appeals Board regarding the compensation payable by the Collector of Land Revenue for the compulsory acquisition of Lot 172 Mukim 32 on Pulau Ubin. The land was acquired for public purposes. The Court of Appeal, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, L P Thean JA, and Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue of the proper method of valuation was a question of fact, not a question of law, and therefore not appealable under s 29(2) of the Land Acquisition Act. The judgment was delivered on 2000-05-17.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal concerning compensation for land compulsorily acquired for public purposes. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the valuation method was a question of fact, not law.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tiessen Trading Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Jimmy Yim, Ian de Vaz |
| Collector of Land Revenue | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Eric Chin Sze Choong, Tan Hee Jiok |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| L P Thean | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Jimmy Yim | Drew & Napier |
| Ian de Vaz | Drew & Napier |
| Eric Chin Sze Choong | State Counsel |
| Tan Hee Jiok | State Counsel |
4. Facts
- The government compulsorily acquired Lot 172 Mukim 32 on Pulau Ubin for public purposes.
- The appellants claimed $27,593,000 as compensation, later raised to $32,497,296 before the Board.
- The Collector awarded $3,950,900 as compensation.
- The Land Acquisition Appeals Board increased the compensation to $5.2m.
- The appellants appealed to the Court of Appeal, claiming around $15m.
- The land was zoned 'rural' and 'mineral workings'.
- The land contained hills, swamps, temples, restaurants, and dwelling houses.
5. Formal Citations
- Tiessen Trading Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue, CA 241/1998, [2000] SGCA 27
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ng Eng Kiat applied to build a residential and holiday resort, which was refused. | |
| Lot 132 was mortgaged to the Far Eastern Bank for $3m. | |
| Far Eastern Bank engaged Knight Frank to value Lot 132. | |
| Far Eastern Bank sold Lot 132 to Swee Yew Seong for $3.5m. | |
| Swee Yew Seong sold Lot 132 to the appellants for $4m. | |
| Appellants applied for planning permission to develop Lot 132 into a resort village. | |
| Planning permission was denied. | |
| Appellants applied for a license to quarry Lot 132, which was rejected. | |
| Lot 171 was compulsorily acquired by the government. | |
| Notification No 2108 was issued for the acquisition of the subject land. | |
| Government acquired the subject land. | |
| Collector awarded $3,950,900 as compensation. | |
| Appeal dismissed. |
7. Legal Issues
- Proper Method of Land Valuation
- Outcome: The court held that the proper method of land valuation is a question of fact, not a question of law, and therefore not appealable under s 29(2) of the Land Acquisition Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1965] 3 WLR 977
- [1968] 1 MLJ 243
- Appeal on Question of Law
- Outcome: The court held that the appeal did not concern a question of law and therefore could not be heard.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Increased compensation for compulsory land acquisition
9. Cause of Actions
- Appeal against award by Land Acquisition Appeals Board
10. Practice Areas
- Real Estate Law
- Appeals
- Land Valuation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Government
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Duke of Buccleuch v IRC | English case | Yes | [1965] 3 WLR 977 | England | Cited regarding the valuation of real property being a question of fact. |
| Alagappa Chettiar v Collector of Land Revenue, Kuala Lumpur | Federal Court of Malaysia | Yes | [1968] 1 MLJ 243 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the ascertainment of market value of land being a question of fact. |
| Collector of Land Revenue v Alagappa Chettiar | High Court of Malaysia | No | [1971] 1 MLJ 43 | Malaysia | Cited regarding the proceedings before the High Court not being an appeal from the Collector's award. |
| Trustees of the Kheng Chiu Tin Hou Kong and Burial Ground v Collector of Land Revenue (HDB) | High Court of Singapore | No | [1992] 1 SLR 425 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case involving a question of law, specifically the interpretation of a statute. |
| Collector of Land Revenue v Ang Thian Soo | High Court of Singapore | No | [1990] SLR 11 [1990] 1 MLJ 327 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case involving a question of law, specifically the interpretation of a statute. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Compulsory acquisition
- Land valuation
- Question of law
- Land Acquisition Act
- Market value
- Pulau Ubin
- Compensation
- Land Acquisition Appeals Board
15.2 Keywords
- land acquisition
- compensation
- valuation
- appeal
- question of law
- pulau ubin
16. Subjects
- Land Acquisition
- Valuation Law
- Civil Appeals
17. Areas of Law
- Land Acquisition Law
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure