Lim Hun Ching v Lim Ah Choon: Sale of Land & Misdescription of Gross Floor Area

In Lim Hun Ching and Another v Lim Ah Choon, the High Court of Singapore addressed a claim by the plaintiffs, Lim Hun Ching and Another, against the defendant, Lim Ah Choon, concerning the purchase of a property. The plaintiffs sought compensation for an alleged misdescription of the property's gross floor area (GFA). The court dismissed the plaintiffs' application, holding that there was no misdescription and that a clause in the option precluded the plaintiffs from obtaining compensation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs’ application dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed a dispute over a property sale, focusing on the misdescription of the gross floor area and the buyer's entitlement to compensation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lim Hun ChingPlaintiffIndividualApplication DismissedLost
Lim Ah ChoonDefendantIndividualJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lee Seiu KinJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Cheah Kok LimAng & Partners
David De SouzaDe Souza Tay & Goh
Jeanette LeeDe Souza Tay & Goh

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs entered into a contract to purchase a property from the Defendant for $1,710,000.00.
  2. The option stated 'Estimated Total Gross Floor Area 397 sq. m.'
  3. The URA approved Gross Floor Area was actually 348.36 square metres.
  4. Plaintiffs sought a declaration that they were entitled to an abatement in the sale price amounting to $209,317.50.
  5. The option contained a clause barring the buyer from compensation on account of any incorrect statement relating to the property.
  6. The sale and purchase was completed without prejudice.
  7. The plaintiffs were aware of the provisions of clause 10 of the Option and the defendant offered to refund the deposit and treat the Option as cancelled.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lim Hun Ching and Another v Lim Ah Choon, OS 927/2002, [2002] SGHC 195

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendant purchased the property.
Defendant advertised the property for sale.
Parties reached agreement on the price and Tan handed the Plaintiffs a draft option.
Parties could not reach an agreement on the text of the option.
Tan met the Plaintiffs at their office to resolve the stalemate.
Plaintiffs exercised the Option.
Tan discovered the Gross Floor Area of the Property as approved by the URA.
Tan telephoned the 2nd Plaintiff about the Gross Floor Area.
Tan telephoned the Plaintiffs to say that the Defendant would not offer any reduction in the price.
Sale and purchase was completed without prejudice.
Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Misdescription of Property
    • Outcome: The court held that there was no misdescription of the property.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Incorrect statement of gross floor area
  2. Effect of Clause Barring Compensation
    • Outcome: The court held that clause 10 of the option precluded the plaintiffs from obtaining compensation or damages for any shortfall in the estimated total gross floor area of the property.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of clause
      • Enforceability of clause

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Abatement in sale price
  2. Compensation

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Jacobs v RevellN/AYes[1900] 2 Ch 858N/ACited for the principle that a vendor cannot obtain specific performance if there is a substantial misdescription, even with a compensation provision.
Cordingley v. CheeseboroughN/AYes(1862) 4 DE G F & J 379N/ACited for the principle that a purchaser seeking specific performance with an abatement of the purchase price is not entitled to it if the contract excludes compensation.
Curtis v FrenchN/AYes[1929] 1 Ch 253N/ACited for the principle that a purchaser cannot recover damages for misstatements if the contract precludes such recovery, even if the vendor cannot provide what was contracted for.
Re Terry and White’s ContractN/AYes(1886) 32 Ch D 14N/ACited for the principle that conditions of sale are part of the contract and are to be construed according to the ordinary interpretation of language as used in business.
Kassim Syed Ali v Grace DevelopmentCourt of AppealNo[1998] 2 SLR 393SingaporeDistinguished as the case involved premises delivered being different from what was purchased, not a mere misdescription.
Lau Lay Hong v HexapillarN/ANo[1993] 3 SLR 198SingaporeDistinguished as the exemption clause in that case was qualified by 'not of a serious or vital nature,' unlike the present case.
Yeo Brothers Co (Pte) Ltd v Atlas Properties (Pte) LtdHigh CourtNo[1987] SLR 443SingaporeDistinguished as the exemption clause in that case was qualified by 'not of a serious or vital nature,' unlike the present case.
Re a Contract Dated 24th July, 1929N/ANo[1930] SSLR 199SingaporeDistinguished as the exemption clause in that case was qualified by 'not of a serious or vital nature,' unlike the present case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Conveyancing and Law of Property ActSingapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Gross Floor Area
  • GFA
  • Misdescription
  • Option
  • Compensation Clause
  • Abatement
  • Sale of Land
  • Property
  • URA
  • Estimated Total Gross Floor Area

15.2 Keywords

  • Sale of Land
  • Gross Floor Area
  • Misdescription
  • Compensation
  • Singapore
  • Property Law
  • Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Property Law75
Sale of Land70
Contract Law65
Conveyance60
Misrepresentation50

16. Subjects

  • Sale of Land
  • Contract Law
  • Real Property Law