Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im: Contractual Licence, Revocation, and Right of Occupation

In Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im, the High Court of Singapore, on April 28, 2000, addressed the issue of whether a deed granted the defendant, Lee Teck Im, a contractual licence or a bare licence to occupy a property owned by the plaintiff, Tan Hin Leong. The court held that the deed created a contractual licence, not revocable at the plaintiff's will, thus dismissing the plaintiff's claim to evict the defendant. The court upheld the defendant's right to occupy the property, provided she adheres to the terms of the deed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court ruled that the deed granted Lee Teck Im a contractual licence to occupy the property, not revocable at will by Tan Hin Leong, upholding her right of occupation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tan Hin LeongPlaintiffIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Lee Teck ImDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
G P SelvamJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Cheong Yuen HeeCM Sum & Co
CM SumCM Sum & Co
James Leslie PonniahCP Lee & Co
CP LeeCP Lee & Co

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff's father maintained the defendant as one of his 'wives'.
  2. Plaintiff's father purchased the property in 1962 and the defendant cohabited with him there.
  3. In 1983, the plaintiff's father transferred the property to the plaintiff.
  4. In 1987, the plaintiff signed a deed granting a licence to the defendant to live in the property.
  5. The deed stipulated a nominal annual rental of $12.
  6. The deed contained covenants regarding the upkeep of the property and restrictions on its use.
  7. The plaintiff gave notice to the defendant to quit the property in 1998.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im, OS 1466/1998, [2000] SGHC 70

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendant began living with plaintiff's father as his 'wife'.
Plaintiff's father purchased the property at No 4 Jalan Lada Puteh.
Plaintiff's father purchased property at No 75 Ming Teck Park in defendant's name.
Plaintiff's father transferred the property at No 4 Jalan Lada Puteh to his son (the plaintiff).
Plaintiff's father transferred his half interest in the Ming Teck Park property to Madam Ang.
Plaintiff signed a deed granting a licence to the defendant to live in the property.
Plaintiff's father died.
Madam Ang died.
Defendant wanted to sell her half interest in the Ming Teck Park property.
Plaintiff gave notice to the defendant asking her to quit the property.
Plaintiff's mother died.
Ming Teck Park property was sold pursuant to a court order.
Plaintiff gave a second legal notice demanding possession.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Revocability of Licence
    • Outcome: The court held that the deed created a contractual licence, not revocable at the plaintiff's will.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether contractual licence or bare licence granted
      • Whether contractual licence revocable at will
    • Related Cases:
      • [1948] AC 173
  2. Construction of Deed
    • Outcome: The court construed the deed to determine the true meaning and effect of the licence granted.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Possession of Property
  2. Damages for Trespass

9. Cause of Actions

  • Ejectment
  • Trespass

10. Practice Areas

  • Real Estate Law
  • Contractual Disputes

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Thomas v SorrellN/AYes[1674] 124 ER 1098N/ACited to define the nature of a licence as not passing any interest in property but merely making an action lawful.
Wood v LeadbitterN/AYes[1845] 153 ER 351N/ACited to illustrate the common law concept of a licence in relation to land and its revocability.
Verrall v Great Yarmouth Borough CouncilCourt of AppealYes[1981] QB 202N/ACited to illustrate the concept of contractual licence and its enforceability.
Winter Garden Theatre (London) Ltd v Millennium Productions LtdHouse of LordsYes[1948] AC 173N/ACited as a key case in the development of the concept of contractual licence.
Errington v Errington and WoodsN/AYes[1952] 1 KB 290N/ACited to explain the nature of a contractual licence and its enforceability in equity.
Booker v PalmerN/AYes[1942] 2 All ER 674N/ACited as a case whose reasoning was superseded by the Winter Garden Theatre case regarding the remedy for breach of a licence.
Hardwick v JohnsonCourt of AppealYes[1978] 2 All ER 935N/ACited to illustrate the application of the new law regarding contractual licences in family arrangements.
Tanner v TannerCourt of AppealYes[1975] 3 All ER 776N/ACited as an example where a contractual licence was implied from the facts of the case.
Reardon Smith Line v Hansen-TangenN/AYes[1976] 3 All ER 570N/ACited for the principle of objective interpretation of contracts.
Neo Hock Pheng v Teo Siew PengN/AYes[1999] 2 SLR 45SingaporeCited for the proposition that a licence for an indefinite period is terminable at will.
Llanelly Rly and Dock Co v London and North-Western Rly CoN/AYes[1873] LR 8 Ch 942N/ACited to illustrate that the question of revocability is one of construction of the contract.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Licence
  • Contractual Licence
  • Bare Licence
  • Deed
  • Revocation
  • Right of Occupation
  • Notice to Quit
  • Personal Right

15.2 Keywords

  • licence
  • contractual licence
  • property
  • revocation
  • deed
  • occupation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contractual Licence95
Revocation of licence90
Licences85
Bare licence80
Property Law75
Contract Law65
Estoppel30

16. Subjects

  • Licences
  • Property Law
  • Contract Law