Winjoy Investment v Goh Boon Huat: Damages for Defects & Breach of Contract
Winjoy Investment Pte Ltd, the developer of "The Blossomvale," was sued by Goh Boon Huat and Lee, purchasers of a unit, for allegedly constructing the unit in a manner not in accordance with the approved plan, constituting a breach of contract. The High Court allowed Winjoy's appeal, finding that Goh and Lee were aware of the mistake in the plans and indifferent to the unit's layout. The court held that Winjoy was not in breach of contract and therefore not liable for liquidated damages or loss of rental.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Winjoy Investment was sued by purchasers Goh and Lee for building defects. The court allowed Winjoy's appeal, finding no breach of contract.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Winjoy Investment Pte Ltd | Appellant, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Allowed | Won | |
| Goh Boon Huat | Respondent, Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| Lee | Respondent, Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| S Rajendran | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Han Yang | Yeo Leong & Peh |
| Gabrielle Tan | Yeo Leong & Peh |
| Jemy Ong | Yu & Co |
| James Yu | Yu & Co |
4. Facts
- Winjoy was the licensed housing developer of "The Blossomvale."
- Goh and Lee secured an option to purchase unit #06-16 on 25 March 1996.
- Two copies of Plan 1 were attached to the letter of consent due to a clerical error.
- Lee noticed the identical plans and was told the changes were "marginal."
- Goh and Lee exercised the option and entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement on 11 April 1996.
- The unit was constructed according to Plan 2.
- Goh and Lee took vacant possession of unit #06-16 on 2 July 1998.
- Goh and Lee claimed the unit was different from that contracted for.
5. Formal Citations
- Winjoy Investment Pte Ltd v Goh Boon Huat and Another, DA 600026/2001, [2002] SGHC 71
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Goh and Lee secured an option to purchase unit #06-16 | |
| Evelyn obtained the option to purchase her ground floor unit | |
| Goh and Lee exercised the option and entered into a Sale and Purchase Agreement with Winjoy | |
| Brochure meant for Goh and Lee was sent to Evelyn | |
| Notice was given to Goh and Lee to take vacant possession of unit #06-16 | |
| Goh and Lee took vacant possession of unit #06-16 | |
| Goh and Lee’s solicitors wrote to Winjoy’s solicitors to say that the unit that Goh and Lee had contracted to purchase was different from that delivered | |
| Winjoy’s solicitors replied apologising for the error in enclosing two copies of the same plan to the letter of consent | |
| Goh and Lee’s solicitors gave notice to Winjoy to take immediate steps to re-do the layout of unit #06-16 | |
| Date specified in Sale and Purchase Agreement for vacant possession | |
| Winjoy collected one set of keys to unit #06-16 for the purpose of carrying out the remedial works | |
| Winjoy returned the front door key to unit #06-16 to Goh and Lee | |
| Winjoy’s solicitors gave notice to complete the purchase on account of the fact that separate title to the unit had been issued | |
| Goh and Lee’s solicitors replied that Winjoy had yet to deliver possession of the re-constructed unit | |
| Winjoy returned the rear door key to them | |
| Winjoy’s solicitors wrote to say that Winjoy had settled Goh and Lee’s claims | |
| The parties completed the sale and purchase on a without prejudice basis | |
| Goh and Lee instituted proceedings in the District Court |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of contract because the purchasers were aware of the mistake in the plans and indifferent to the unit's layout.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to build in accordance with approved plans
- Failure to deliver vacant possession
- Damages for Defects
- Outcome: The court held that the purchasers were not entitled to liquidated damages or loss of rental income because there was no breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Loss of rental income
- Liquidated damages
8. Remedies Sought
- Liquidated Damages
- Loss of Rental Income
- Specific Performance
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kassim Syed Ali & Ors v Grace Development Pte Ltd & Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 393 | Singapore | Cited to support the proposition that a claim for liquidated damages for late completion is not applicable in assessing damages for other breaches of contract by the developer. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Housing & Developers Rules 1985 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Letter of Consent
- Sale and Purchase Agreement
- Vacant Possession
- Liquidated Damages
- Remedial Works
- Approved Plan
- Proposed Revision
15.2 Keywords
- breach of contract
- construction defects
- sale of property
- liquidated damages
- real estate
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Contract Law | 70 |
| Real Estate | 60 |
| Damages | 60 |
| Property Law | 50 |
| Jurisdiction | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Construction Law
- Real Estate Law