Chiam Toon Hong v Ong Soo Yong: Dispute over Rescission of Land Sale Contract
In Chiam Toon Hong v Ong Soo Yong, the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding the attempted rescission of a contract for the sale of land. Chiam Toon Hong sought a declaration that his contract to sell his share of 145 Killiney Road to Ong Soo Yong had been rescinded and for the removal of a caveat lodged by Ong. The court, presided over by Justice Tan Lee Meng, dismissed Chiam's application, finding that Ong did not terminate the contract and that Chiam was not entitled to annul the contract under Clause 5 of the Law Society of Singapore’s Conditions of Sale 1999. The decision was made on June 28, 2004.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Chiam Toon Hong sought to rescind a contract to sell land to Ong Soo Yong. The court dismissed Chiam's application, finding no valid rescission.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Chiam Toon Hong | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | Aziz Tayabali, Rajan Supramaniam |
Ong Soo Yong | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Won | Hoon Tai Meng, Nandakumar |
3. Judges
Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
---|---|---|
Tan Lee Meng | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
Counsel Name | Organization |
---|---|
Aziz Tayabali | Aziz Tayabali and Associates |
Rajan Supramaniam | Aziz Tayabali and Associates |
Hoon Tai Meng | T M Hoon and Co |
Nandakumar | T M Hoon and Co |
4. Facts
- Chiam agreed to sell his 5% share of 145 Killiney Road to Ong on April 2, 2002.
- The property is co-owned, with a rent-controlled hotel on it.
- A prior court order required co-owners to sell the property via public tender.
- Chiam did not disclose the court order to Ong before the sale agreement.
- Both parties were initially represented by the same solicitor, Ang.
- The Singapore Land Authority omitted the Order of Court on the Certificate of Title.
- Chiam refused to pay the legal costs for varying the Order of Court.
5. Formal Citations
- Chiam Toon Hong v Ong Soo Yong, OS 1333/2003, [2004] SGHC 138
6. Timeline
Date | Event |
---|---|
Originating Summons No 582 of 1996 instituted to obtain an order that the property be sold. | |
Court order directing the Killiney property to be sold by public tender. | |
Court order varied. | |
Chiam entered into an agreement to sell his share of the Killiney property to Ong. | |
Caveat lodged against the property by Ong. | |
Ang wrote to the Singapore Land Authority regarding the Order of Court. | |
Singapore Land Authority replied regarding the Order of Court. | |
Ang met Chiam’s representatives, Oh and Yap, for discussions. | |
Ang wrote to Chiam to ask whether or not the certificate of title to be forwarded to the Singapore Land Authority. | |
Completion date. | |
Chiam’s representatives, Oh and Yap, met Ong. | |
Chiam instructed M/s Koh Ong & Partners to take over his file from Ang. | |
T M Hoon & Co wrote to Koh Ong & Partners to propose that Chiam apply for a variation of the Order of Court. | |
Koh Ong & Partners replied to put on record that Ong had terminated the sale and purchase agreement on 24 May 2002. | |
T M Hoon & Co replied and denied that Ong had aborted the transaction. | |
Koh Ong & Partners sent a cheque for the $20,000 deposit to T M Hoon & Co, who promptly returned the cheque. | |
Koh Ong & Partners again sent a cheque for the $20,000 deposit to T M Hoon & Co. | |
T M Hoon & Co returned the cheque and warned that if Chiam failed to obtain the permission of the court to sell his share of the Killiney property to Ong within ten days, legal proceedings would be instituted. | |
Koh Ong & Partners informed T M Hoon & Co that Chiam remained ready, able and willing to return Ong’s deposit and demanded that Ong withdraw his caveat on the property by 7 June 2002. | |
Koh Ong & Partners served on Ong a notice under cl 5 of the Law Society of Singapore’s Conditions of Sale 1999 that the sale and purchase would be annulled in ten days. | |
T M Hoon & Co objected to the notice to annul the sale and purchase agreement and returned the cheque for the $20,000 deposit. | |
Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Rescission of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that the contract was not validly rescinded.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1918] AC 1
- [1984–1985] SLR 183
- [1986] SLR 48
- [1995] 3 SLR 207
- Annulment of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that the contract was not validly annulled under clause 5 of the Law Society of Singapore’s Conditions of Sale 1999.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1984–1985] SLR 183
- [1986] SLR 48
- [1995] 3 SLR 207
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that contract was rescinded
- Order for removal of caveat
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Real Estate Law
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Morris v Baron & Co | House of Lords | Yes | [1918] AC 1 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the discharge of a contract required to be evidenced in writing need not be in writing. |
Chay Chong Hwa v Seah Mary | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1984–1985] SLR 183 | Singapore | Cited for the circumstances under which clause 5 of the Law Society of Singapore’s Conditions of Sale may be relied on by a vendor. |
Chay Chong Hwa v Seah Mary | Privy Council | Yes | [1986] SLR 48 | United Kingdom | Cited for the circumstances under which clause 5 of the Law Society of Singapore’s Conditions of Sale may be relied on by a vendor. |
Foo Ah Kim v Koo Chen Lim | Court of Appeal | No | [1995] 3 SLR 207 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish the circumstances under which a vendor can rely on clause 5 of the Law Society of Singapore’s Conditions of Sale. |
Paal Wilson & Co A/S v Partenreederei Hannah Blumenthal | House of Lords | No | [1983] AC 854 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the question of abandonment of contract. |
13. Applicable Rules
Rule Name |
---|
Clause 5 of the Law Society of Singapore’s Conditions of Sale 1999 |
14. Applicable Statutes
Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
---|---|
No applicable statutes |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Rescission
- Annulment
- Caveat
- Order of Court
- Tenants-in-common
- Law Society of Singapore’s Conditions of Sale 1999
15.2 Keywords
- land sale
- rescission
- caveat
- contract law
- property law
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Real Estate
- Property Law
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Land Law
- Sale of Land