Norsiah binte Samat v Neo Poh Guan: Rescission of Property Sale Agreement Due to Road Reserve

In Norsiah binte Samat v Neo Poh Guan, the High Court of Singapore addressed the plaintiff's claim for a declaration to rescind an agreement for the sale and purchase of property at 31 Toh Crescent. The plaintiff, Norsiah binte Samat, sought to rescind the agreement with the defendants, Neo Poh Guan and another, due to an unsatisfactory reply regarding a road reserve affecting 20.2% of the property's total area. The court, Lai Kew Chai J presiding, granted the declaration, ordering the defendants to repay the $310,000 deposit with interest from 17 December 2002, finding the road reserve issue rendered the reply to requisitions unsatisfactory.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Declaration granted for plaintiff to rescind the agreement; defendants ordered to repay deposit with interest.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Plaintiff rescinds property sale agreement due to unsatisfactory road reserve reply. Court orders return of deposit with interest, finding for the plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

22 October 2003

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Norsiah binte Samat	Plaintiff	Individual	Declaration Granted	Won	Philip Jeyaretnam, Ling Tien Wah
Neo Poh Guan	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Margaret George

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lai Kew Chai	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Philip Jeyaretnam	Rodyk and Davidson
Ling Tien Wah	Rodyk and Davidson
Margaret George	Koh Ong and Partners

4. Facts

Plaintiff sought to rescind an agreement to purchase property at 31 Toh Crescent for $3.1 million.
Property consisted of Lot 1009A and Lot 1011T, with a total area of approximately 16,000 sq ft.
A Road Line Plan revealed that Lot 1011T was designated as a Category 5 road reserve.
Lot 1011T constituted 20.2% of the total area of the property.
Plaintiff claimed the reply to the requisition was unsatisfactory, entitling her to rescind the agreement.
Defendants claimed the sale only related to Lot 1009A, but this was contradicted by their solicitor's letter.
Clause 14 of the agreement allowed rescission if replies to requisitions were unsatisfactory.

5. Formal Citations

Norsiah binte Samat v Neo Poh Guan and Another, OS 143/2003/Q, [2003] SGHC 260

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1972-01-27	Notice of Grant of Written Permission issued to the 1st defendant to subdivide Lot 487A into 3 lots.
1972-04-20	Defendants purchased Lot 487A.
1972-06-28	Defendants subdivided Lot 487A into 3 lots.
1972-07-24	Defendants sold 35 Toh Crescent to Jeganathan Jesudason Isaac.
2002-07-01	Plaintiff and her husband visited the property with housing agents.
2002-09-27	Defendants advertised the property for sale in the Straits Times.
2002-10-01	Plaintiff's husband contacted Ms. Christine Chan after seeing the advertisement.
2002-10-01	Plaintiff and her husband applied to DBS Bank for a housing loan.
2002-10-23	Defendants granted the plaintiff an option to purchase the property.
2002-10-24	Plaintiff's solicitor contacted the defendants' office regarding discrepancy in land area.
2002-10-25	Defendants' solicitors confirmed the sale comprised Lots 1009A and 1011T.
2002-11-07	Plaintiff exercised the Option to purchase.
2002-11-01	Plaintiff's solicitors sent out requisitions pertaining to the property.
2002-11-19	Plaintiff's solicitors gave notice that the reply from LTA was unsatisfactory.
2002-11-25	Defendants claimed the sale was only in relation to Lot 1009A.
2002-12-05	Plaintiff gave notice of rescission of the agreement.
2003-10-23	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Rescission of Agreement for Sale and Purchase
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to rescind the agreement due to an unsatisfactory reply to a requisition regarding a road reserve.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Unsatisfactory reply to requisition
  - Road reserve affecting property
- Related Cases:
  - [1987] 2 MLJ 533
  - [1993] 3 SLR 669
  - [1987] 2 MLJ 557
Satisfactory Reply to Requisition
- Outcome: The court held that the reply to the requisition was unsatisfactory based on an objective test, considering the impact of the road reserve on the property.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1987] 2 MLJ 533
  - [1993] 3 SLR 669
  - [1987] 2 MLJ 557

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration to rescind the agreement
Return of deposit
Interest on deposit

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Rescission of Contract

10. Practice Areas

Real Estate Law
Property Law
Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Peh Kwee Yong v Sinar Co (Pte) Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1987] 2 MLJ 533	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that a road interpretation plan issued by the PWD constitutes an answer to a requisition and the test to be applied in determining whether a reply to a requisition is satisfactory or not is an objective one.
Ang Kok Kuan v Ang Boh Seng	Unknown	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 669	Singapore	Cited for the principle that a road interpretation plan issued by the PWD constitutes an answer to a requisition and the test to be applied in determining whether a reply to a requisition is satisfactory or not is an objective one.
Chu Yik Man v S Rajagopal & Co & Anor	Unknown	No	[1987] 2 MLJ 557	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that the test of what is satisfactory must be applied objectively, using the test of a reasonably determined purchaser.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Planning Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Road reserve
Requisition
Rescission
Agreement for sale and purchase
Option to purchase
Lot
Property
Deposit

15.2 Keywords

property
land
sale
agreement
rescission
road reserve
requisition

16. Subjects

Land Sale
Property Law
Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

Land Law
Contract Law
Conveyancing