Philip Motha Consultancy v Jones Lang Lasalle: Co-broking Agreement Dispute
Philip Motha Consultancy Pte Ltd ("PMC") sued Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants Pte Ltd ("JLL") in the High Court of Singapore, claiming $270,146.25 under a co-broking agreement for the en bloc sale of properties in Devonshire Road. PMC asserted entitlement to half of the commission earned by JLL in 1999 and a refund of a portion of a forfeited tender fee. Tan Lee Meng J dismissed PMC's claim, finding no valid basis for the commission share or the refund.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Claim Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Real estate agency Philip Motha Consultancy sued Jones Lang Lasalle over a co-broking agreement. The court dismissed the claim, finding no basis for a commission share.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Philip Motha Consultancy Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Shriniwas Rai, Prasad Karunakarn |
| Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants Pte Ltd (formerly known as JLW Property Consultants Pte Ltd) | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Patrick Ang, Nicholas Watt |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Shriniwas Rai | Hin Rai & Tan |
| Prasad Karunakarn | Tang & Tan |
| Patrick Ang | Rajah & Tann |
| Nicholas Watt | Rajah & Tann |
4. Facts
- PMC and JLL entered into a co-broking agreement in 1995 for the en bloc sale of properties.
- PMC obtained a mandate from the owners of the Devonshire properties in April 1996.
- JLL outlined the terms of the co-broking agreement in a letter dated 23 April 1996.
- Grandwin Investment Pte Ltd submitted a tender bid but later withdrew it, forfeiting the tender fee.
- PMC received 30% of the forfeited sum and paid half of it to JLL.
- PMC's mandate expired in August 1996.
- JLL succeeded in selling the properties in 1999 and earned a commission.
5. Formal Citations
- Philip Motha Consultancy Pte Ltd v Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants Pte Ltd (formerly known as JLW Property Consultants Pte Ltd), Suit 459/2002/Z, [2002] SGHC 283
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| PMC and JLL discussed a co-broking arrangement. | |
| PMC obtained a mandate for the en bloc sale of the Devonshire properties. | |
| JLL outlined the terms of the co-broking agreement in a letter to PMC. | |
| Grandwin Investment Pte Ltd submitted a tender bid. | |
| Grandwin withdrew their tender bid. | |
| PMC's mandate from the owners of the Devonshire properties expired. | |
| The owners of the Devonshire properties appointed JLL as their marketing agents. | |
| The owners of the Devonshire properties appointed Edmund Tie & Co as their exclusive agents. | |
| JLL succeeded in selling the Devonshire properties. | |
| PMC claimed entitlement to half of the commission earned by JLL. | |
| PMC wrote to JLL again to claim half of the commission. | |
| PMC invoiced JLL for half of the commission and sought a refund of the amount paid to JLL in 1996. | |
| Judgment was issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found no breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Money Had and Received
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was not entitled to claim the amount paid to the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Money Had and Received
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brisbane v Dacres | N/A | Yes | Brisbane v Dacres (1813) 5 Taunt 143 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a voluntary payment made with full knowledge of the facts cannot be recovered. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act, Cap 97, section 94 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Co-broking agreement
- En bloc sale
- Commission
- Forfeited tender fee
- Mandate
15.2 Keywords
- Co-broking
- Real estate
- Commission
- Singapore
- Contract
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Real Estate
- Agency
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Real Estate Law
- Agency Law