Goh Kim Heong v AT & J Co Pte Ltd: Property Sale Dispute over Completion Payments
In Goh Kim Heong and Others v AT & J Co Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard a dispute arising from the sale of a property. The plaintiffs, Goh Kim Heong, Foo Khee Tong, Goh Sewi Tong, Woo Koh Wan, and Goh Keng Hock, sued the defendant, AT & J Co Pte Ltd, over the amount payable on legal completion of a property sale. The court, presided over by Justice Kan Ting Chiu, ruled in favor of the purchasers, finding that the vendor was not entitled to further sums beyond what was agreed upon during functional completion. The court rejected the vendor's defense and refused leave to appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for the purchasers
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dispute over property sale completion payments after functional completion. The court ruled in favor of the purchasers, rejecting the vendor's claim for additional payments.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goh Kim Heong | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Peter Wong, Li Ping, Jennifer Leng |
| AT & J Co Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Ng Siew Hoong, Lim Shack Keong |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Kan Ting Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Peter Wong | William Lai & Alan Wong |
| Li Ping | William Lai & Alan Wong |
| Jennifer Leng | William Lai & Alan Wong |
| Ng Siew Hoong | Peter Moe & Partners |
| Lim Shack Keong | Peter Moe & Partners |
4. Facts
- Defendant issued an option to purchase property to the plaintiffs for $890,000.
- Plaintiffs accepted and exercised the option, paying 10% of the purchase price.
- Completion was disrupted by the death of one of the purchasers.
- Parties entered into negotiations for functional completion pending letters of administration.
- Purchasers paid $371,304.36 to the vendor on 8 March 2000.
- Disagreement arose over the amount to be paid on legal completion.
- Plaintiffs paid $376,749.64 under protest on 8 February.
5. Formal Citations
- Goh Kim Heong and Others v AT & J Co Pte Ltd, OS 600751/2001, [2001] SGHC 269
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Option to purchase property issued | |
| Option to purchase property accepted and exercised | |
| Death of Fuu Khee Tong [commat] Foo Khee Tong | |
| Original completion date | |
| Vendor's solicitors sent completion account to purchasers' solicitors | |
| Purchasers paid $371,304.36 to the vendor | |
| Letters of administration extracted | |
| Vendor's solicitors issued another completion account | |
| Plaintiffs paid $376,749.64 under protest | |
| Legal completion took place | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Entitlement to further sums on legal completion
- Outcome: The court held that the vendor was not entitled to further sums on legal completion, as the purchasers had fulfilled their obligations through the functional completion agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Leave to appeal to Court of Appeal
- Outcome: Leave to appeal was refused as the dispute did not involve any important question of law for determination by the Court of Appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 4 SLR 401
- [1989] SLR 607
- [1989] 3 MLJ 5
- [1997] 3 SLR 489
- [1999] 4 SLR 716
8. Remedies Sought
- Refund of $47,484.88
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Spandeck Engineering (S) v Yong Qiang Construction | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 401 | Singapore | Cited regarding the intention of Parliament in raising the threshold in s 34(2)(a) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act to limit the right of appeal to the Court of Appeal. |
| Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin | High Court | Yes | [1989] SLR 607 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to obtain leave to appeal when the amount involved is below the statutory amount, an applicant must show that a serious and important issue of law is involved. |
| Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan Tin | High Court | Yes | [1989] 3 MLJ 5 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to obtain leave to appeal when the amount involved is below the statutory amount, an applicant must show that a serious and important issue of law is involved. |
| Pang Hon Chin`s case | N/A | Yes | [1986] 2 MLJ 145 | N/A | Cited for the circumstances for granting leave to appeal. |
| Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 489 | Singapore | Cited for the three limbs which can be relied upon when leave to appeal is sought. |
| Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin Syed | N/A | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 716 | Singapore | Cited for refining and clarifying the principles to be applied when granting leave to appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, 1999 Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Functional completion
- Legal completion
- Completion account
- Letters of administration
- Redemption amount
- Mortgage
- Tenancy agreement
- Balance of purchase price
15.2 Keywords
- Property sale
- Completion payments
- Functional completion
- Legal completion
- Leave to appeal
16. Subjects
- Property Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Land Law
- Contract Law