Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im: Contractual Licence, Property Occupation Rights

In Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard an appeal regarding a decision that Lee Teck Im had a contractual licence to occupy a property owned by Tan Hin Leong for her lifetime. The dispute arose after Lee Teck Im sold a property she co-owned and Tan Hin Leong sought to terminate her occupation of his property. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal, holding that the deed between the parties created a contractual licence for Lee Teck Im's lifetime, terminable only upon her death or breach of the deed's covenants.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding a contractual licence to occupy property. The court held that the respondent had a lifetime contractual licence, not terminable at will.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Tan Hin LeongAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLost
Lee Teck ImRespondentIndividualAppeal DismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chao Hick TinJustice of the Court of AppealYes
L P TheanJustice of the Court of AppealNo
Yong Pung HowChief JusticeNo

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Tan Choon Swee, the appellant's father, bought the property in 1962 and lived there with the respondent.
  2. In 1983, Tan Choon Swee transferred the property to the appellant as a marriage gift.
  3. In 1987, the appellant and respondent executed a deed stipulating the terms of the respondent's occupation of the property.
  4. The deed stipulated a nominal annual rental of $12 and certain covenants for the respondent.
  5. The respondent undertook not to make any claim adverse to the appellant's rights and interests in the property.
  6. The appellant served notices to quit on the respondent, seeking to terminate her occupation of the property.
  7. The respondent claimed she was entitled to occupy the property for the duration of her life.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im, CA 66/2000, [2001] SGCA 7
  2. Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im, , [2000] 3 SLR 85

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Lee Teck Im met Tan Choon Swee and they began living together.
Tan Choon Swee bought the property at 4, Jalan Lada Puteh.
Tan Choon Swee bought the property at 75, Ming Teck Park in the sole name of Lee Teck Im.
Tan Choon Swee transferred the property at 4, Jalan Lada Puteh to Tan Hin Leong by way of gift.
Tan Hin Leong and Lee Teck Im executed a deed stipulating the terms upon which Lee Teck Im would remain in occupation of the property.
Tan Choon Swee died.
Madam Ang Ah Bak died.
Lee Teck Im applied to the High Court for an order that the Ming Teck Park property be sold.
Tan Hin Leong's solicitors issued a notice to quit on Lee Teck Im.
The High Court granted an order for the Ming Teck Park property to be sold.
Tan Hin Leong's solicitors issued another notice to quit on Lee Teck Im.
The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether the licence to occupy the property was contractual
    • Outcome: The court held that the licence was contractual, created by the deed executed between the parties.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Whether the contractual licence was terminable
    • Outcome: The court held that the contractual licence was not terminable at will but was for the lifetime of the respondent, subject to the terms of the deed.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Possession of Property
  2. Damages for Trespass

9. Cause of Actions

  • Trespass

10. Practice Areas

  • Real Estate Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck ImHigh CourtYes[2000] 3 SLR 85SingaporeAffirmed the High Court's decision that the respondent has a contractual licence to occupy the property for the duration of her life.
Hardwick v JohnsonCourt of AppealYes[1978] 2 All ER 935England and WalesDiscussed in relation to the nature of a contractual licence and whether it was a contractual or equitable licence.
Hardwick v JohnsonCourt of AppealYes[1978] 1 WLR 683England and WalesDiscussed in relation to the nature of a contractual licence and whether it was a contractual or equitable licence.
Errington v Errington and WoodsCourt of AppealYes[1952] 1 KB 290England and WalesCited as an example of a personal privilege creating a licence.
Balfour v BalfourCourt of AppealYes[1919] 1 KB 571England and WalesCited as authority for saying there was no contract.
Pettitt v PettittHouse of LordsYes[1970] AC 777United KingdomCited in the context of imputing a common intention to the parties.
Tanner v TannerCourt of AppealYes[1975] 3 All ER 776England and WalesDiscussed in relation to implying a contractual licence in favour of the defendants.
Tanner v TannerCourt of AppealYes[1975] 1 WLR 1346England and WalesDiscussed in relation to implying a contractual licence in favour of the defendants.
Binions & Anor v EvansCourt of AppealYes[1972] Ch 359England and WalesDiscussed as a case bearing some similarity to the case at hand, regarding a contractual licence resulting in an equitable interest.
Binions & Anor v EvansCourt of AppealYes[1972] 2 All ER 70England and WalesDiscussed as a case bearing some similarity to the case at hand, regarding a contractual licence resulting in an equitable interest.
Shell-Mex and BP Ltd v Manchester Garages LtdCourt of AppealYes[1971] 1 WLR 612England and WalesCited in relation to the status of a contractual licence.
In re Carne`s Settled EstatesHigh Court of JusticeYes[1899] 1 Ch 324England and WalesCited as an example of a right to occupy for life giving rise to an equitable interest.
In re Boyer`s Settled EstatesHigh Court of JusticeYes[1916] 2 Ch 404England and WalesCited as an example of a right to occupy for life giving rise to an equitable interest.
Foster v RobinsonCourt of AppealYes[1951] 1 KB 149England and WalesCited in relation to the courts of equity not allowing the landlord to turn the occupier out in breach of the contract.
Chandler v KerleyCourt of AppealYes[1978] 2 All ER 942England and WalesDiscussed in relation to the fusion of law and equity and the protection of a legal right by injunction.
Chandler v KerleyCourt of AppealYes[1978] 1 WLR 693England and WalesDiscussed in relation to the fusion of law and equity and the protection of a legal right by injunction.
Hurst v Picture Theatres LtdCourt of AppealYes[1915] 1 KB 1England and WalesCited in relation to the protection of a legal right by injunction.
Winter Garden Theatre (London) Ltd v Millenium Productions LtdHouse of LordsYes[1948] AC 173United KingdomCited in relation to the protection of a legal right by injunction.
Dodsworth v DodsworthCourt of AppealYes[1973] 228 EG 1115England and WalesCited in relation to not conferring upon the defendants a greater interest than was envisaged by the parties.
Anchor Butter Co Ltd v Tui Foods LtdHigh Court (Commercial List) of AucklandYes[1997] 3 NZLR 107New ZealandDistinguished from the present case, as the agreements in Anchor Butter were for an indefinite duration, whereas the deed in the present case created a licence for a definite period.
Neo Hock Pheng v Teo Siew PengCourt of AppealYes[1999] 2 SLR 45SingaporeCited for the principle that where a licence to occupy a property is given for an indefinite period, such a licence is terminable at will.

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

  • Contractual Licence
  • Deed
  • Licence to Occupy
  • Bare Licence
  • Termination of Licence
  • Equitable Licence
  • Tenants-in-common

15.2 Keywords

  • Contractual Licence
  • Property
  • Occupation Rights
  • Singapore
  • Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Property Law
  • Contract Law
  • Licences