Ken Glass Design v Wind-Power Construction: Illegality & Contract Breach in Property Sale
Ken Glass Design Associate Pte Ltd sued Wind-Power Construction Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on 14 October 2002, for breach of contract related to a property sale agreement. The agreement was contingent on Jurong Town Corporation (JTC) approval, which was obtained through a deceptive application. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Lee Seiu Kin, disallowed the recovery of damages due to the deceptive nature of the agreement and ordered the stakeholders to pay $58,000 to the Plaintiffs and $95,000 to the Defendants.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Recovery of damages disallowed; stakeholders ordered to pay $58,000 to the Plaintiffs and $95,000 to the Defendants.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Ken Glass Design sued Wind-Power Construction for breach of contract after a failed property sale. The court denied damages due to the parties' deceptive application to JTC.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ken Glass Design Associate Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Recovery of damages disallowed | Lost | |
| Wind-Power Construction Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Damages not liable | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs granted Defendants an option to purchase property for $1.7 million.
- Defendants accepted the option and paid $170,000 to stakeholders.
- Parties entered into a tenancy agreement for the Plaintiffs to lease back the property.
- JTC gave in-principle approval for the sale, subject to certain conditions.
- Plaintiffs were required to furnish the Certificate of Statutory Completion (CSC) for a mezzanine floor extension.
- Defendants refused to extend the completion date after delays in obtaining the CSC.
- Plaintiffs obtained the CSC but Defendants refused to complete the sale.
5. Formal Citations
- Ken Glass Design Associate Pte Ltd v Wind-Power Construction Pte Ltd, Suit No 1557 of 2001, [2002] SGHC 237
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Option to purchase the property granted by the Plaintiffs to the Defendants. | |
| Defendants accepted the offer by making a payment of $153,000. | |
| JTC gave their in-principle approval for the sale and purchase of the Property. | |
| Parties entered into a tenancy agreement. | |
| Plaintiffs' solicitors asked if the Defendants would be prepared to give an undertaking to furnish the CSC after completion. | |
| Defendants' solicitors replied that the Defendants were not prepared to furnish any undertaking to JTC. | |
| Completion did not take place. | |
| Defendants’ solicitors asked the Plaintiffs’ solicitors when the Plaintiffs expected to obtain the CSC and contained a 21-day notice to complete. | |
| Plaintiffs’ solicitors replied that the Defendants had agreed to extend the date for completion to end October. | |
| Defendants' solicitors sent a holding letter. | |
| Plaintiffs obtained the CSC. | |
| Plaintiffs’ solicitors wrote to the Defendants’ solicitors to advise that they were ready to complete on 31 October. | |
| Defendants’ solicitors replied that the Defendants had never agreed to extend completion to end October. | |
| Plaintiffs’ solicitors gave the Defendants 21 days' notice to complete. | |
| Defendants’ solicitors made a demand for the return of the $170,000 paid by the Defendants. | |
| Plaintiffs withdrew their prayer for specific performance. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found the Defendants in breach of contract for refusing to complete the sale on 31 October.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Refusal to complete at completion date
- Disputes as to extension of contract
- Illegality and Public Policy
- Outcome: The court held that the agreement was unenforceable due to the deceptive application made to JTC, which violated public policy.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Deceptive application to Jurong Town Corporation
- Sale and leaseback agreement
- Related Cases:
- [1957] 2 All ER 844
- [1986] SLR 59
- [1998] 3 SLR 191
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Construction
- Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brown, Jenkinson & Co Ltd v Percy Dalton (London) Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1957] 2 All ER 844 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a court should not enforce a bargain that involves making a false representation to deceive third parties. |
| Suntoso Jacob v Kong Miao Ming | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1986] SLR 59 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff who has practiced deception on public administration will be denied remedy. |
| Tan Soi v Pow Kwee Lan & Ors | High Court | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 191 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff who does not come to court with clean hands will be denied remedy. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Option
- Sale and leaseback agreement
- Certificate of Statutory Completion
- Jurong Town Corporation
- Stakeholders
- Tenancy agreement
- In pari delicto
15.2 Keywords
- breach of contract
- property sale
- illegality
- JTC
- sale and leaseback
- certificate of statutory completion
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 90 |
| Sale and Leaseback Agreement | 80 |
| Illegality and public policy | 70 |
| Property Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Real Estate
- Sale and Leaseback
- Illegality