Hemlata Pathela v Suresh Partabrai: Unlicensed Agent's Commission Claim & Contract Enforceability
In Hemlata Pathela (trading as Coco Properties) v Suresh Partabrai, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the appeal of Hemlata Pathela, who sought to recover a commission for brokering a property sale. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck JC, held on July 5, 2000, that an unlicensed real estate agent could not enforce a contract for brokerage commission due to contravention of the Auctioneer's Licences Act and public policy. The plaintiff's claim was struck out, affirming the lower court's decision.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Coco Properties sues for commission on a property sale. The court held that an unlicensed agent cannot enforce a brokerage contract due to public policy.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hemlata Pathela (trading as Coco Properties) | Plaintiff, Appellant | Individual | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Suresh Partabrai | Defendant, Respondent | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eric Low | Khattar Wong & Partners |
| Madan Assomull | Assomull & Partners |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff, Hemlata Pathela, trading as Coco Properties, brokered the sale of the defendants' property.
- The sale of the property at 1 Amber Road was for $2.7 million.
- The contract for sale was concluded on 20 August 1998.
- The sale was completed on 21 October 1998.
- The plaintiff sued for a commission of $27,000, being 1% of the purchase price.
- The plaintiff did not have a license under the Auctioneer's Licences Act (Cap 16).
- The defendants applied to strike out the plaintiff's claim.
5. Formal Citations
- Hemlata Pathela (trading as Coco Properties) v Suresh Partabrai and Another, MC Suit 14038/1999, [2000] SGHC 126
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Contract for sale concluded | |
| Sale completed | |
| MC Suit 14038/1999 filed | |
| Appeal dismissed |
7. Legal Issues
- Enforceability of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that the contract was unenforceable by the unlicensed agent due to public policy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Statutory Illegality
- Public Policy
- Related Cases:
- Commercial Life Assurance Co v Drever [1948] 2 DLR 241
- Foo Kee Boo v Ho Lee Investments (Pte) Ltd [1988] SLR 620
- Striking Out Claim
- Outcome: The court found that striking out the claim was not the proper procedure, but the same result was achieved through the arguments presented.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Claim for Commission
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gremaire v Valon | N/A | Yes | Gremaire v Valon 2 Camp 143; 170 ER 1110 | N/A | Cited regarding whether a surgeon was entitled to sue for his fees even though he was not licensed; doubted by Parke B in Cope v Rowlands. |
| Cope v Rowlands | N/A | Yes | Cope v Rowlands (1836) 2 M & W 149; 150 ER 707 | N/A | Cited in relation to the Gremaire v Valon case regarding whether a surgeon was entitled to sue for his fees even though he was not licensed. |
| Commercial Life Assurance Co v Drever | Supreme Court of Canada | Yes | Commercial Life Assurance Co v Drever [1948] 2 DLR 241 | Canada | Cited as support for the argument that a person holding himself out as a real estate agent cannot support a claim for commission if he did not possess the requisite license. |
| Foo Kee Boo v Ho Lee Investments (Pte) Ltd | N/A | Yes | Foo Kee Boo v Ho Lee Investments (Pte) Ltd [1988] SLR 620 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether the penalties provided under the Housing Developers (Control and Licensing) Rules were the only consequence intended by the legislature. |
| Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | Vita Food Products Inc v Unus Shipping Co Ltd [1939] AC 277 | N/A | Cited regarding public policy and nullifying contracts for disobedience to a statute. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Auctioneer's Licences Act (Cap 16) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Real Estate Agent
- Commission
- Auctioneer's Licences Act
- Statutory Illegality
- Public Policy
- Unlicensed Agent
- Enforceability
- Striking Out
15.2 Keywords
- real estate agent
- commission
- unlicensed agent
- contract enforceability
- Auctioneer's Licences Act
- Singapore
- property sale
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Illegality and public policy | 90 |
| Contract Law | 85 |
| Real Estate Agency | 75 |
| Civil Practice | 70 |
| Agency Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Agency Law
- Civil Procedure