By Products Traders v JAK Alhadad: Refund of Deposits & Misrepresentation in Property Sale

In By Products Traders Pte Ltd and Another v JAK Alhadad & Co Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court addressed a claim by By Products Traders Pte Ltd and David Reginald Ellis Broadley against JAK Alhadad & Co Pte Ltd for the refund of deposits paid under contracts for the sale and purchase of properties. The plaintiffs sought the refund after JAK was unable to fulfill its contractual obligations. JAK counterclaimed for losses, alleging the plaintiffs repudiated the contracts. The High Court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, ordering the refund of deposits and dismissing JAK's counterclaim, finding that JAK could not perform its obligations and had misrepresented the beneficiaries of the estate.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the plaintiffs; deposits to be refunded. Defendant's counterclaim dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case regarding the refund of deposits after a failed property sale due to the vendor's inability to transfer the property.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
By Products Traders Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
JAK Alhadad & Co Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim DismissedLost
David Reginald Ellis BroadleyPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Kah HinChoo Hin and Partners
Ruby TanAbu Bakar Tan Ibrahim and Partners
Nor'ain bte Abu BakarAbu Bakar Tan Ibrahim and Partners

4. Facts

  1. JAK entered into agreements to sell properties it was purchasing from the M & S group to BP and Broadley.
  2. JAK could not transfer the properties because the M & S group were not the only beneficiaries.
  3. The Public Trustee was empowered to sell the properties free from encumbrances.
  4. JAK misrepresented to the plaintiffs that the members of the M & S group were the only beneficiaries.
  5. Plaintiffs sought to recover deposits paid to JAK.
  6. JAK alleged the plaintiffs repudiated the contract.
  7. BTT had an order of court recognizing that it had taken over the interest of the group that sold it the 29 properties.

5. Formal Citations

  1. By Products Traders Pte Ltd and Another v JAK Alhadad & Co Pte Ltd, Suit 453/2003, [2004] SGHC 265

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Shaik Ahmad bin Abdullah Wahdain Basharahil died.
Public Trustee appointed trustee by court order.
JAK entered into an agreement with Abdurrachman to sell the estate’s 29 properties.
JAK granted Broadley an option to purchase the 29 properties.
Broadley lodged a caveat against the properties.
Abdurrachman’s application to become the trustee of the estate was dismissed by the High Court.
JAK reported Abdurrachman to the Singapore police for cheating.
JAK entered into an agreement to sell four properties to BP.
JAK entered into agreements with the M & S group for the sale and purchase of the estate’s 29 properties.
JAK concluded seven agreements to sell 21 properties to Broadley.
BTT instituted Suit No 1255 of 1996 against the vendors and the Public Trustee.
BTT obtained a declaration regarding its rights to the properties.
BP lodged a caveat with respect to the properties.
JAK undertook to pay the M & S group and the rival group of claimants a total of 38.5bn rupiahs on completion of the sale.
The Public Trustee and Quraisj Wahidin instituted Originating Summons No 1030 of 2000 to obtain an order to sell the estate’s 29 properties.
Musa and Salim filed Originating Summons No 600626 of 2001.
Lee JC ruled that there were 14 principal beneficiaries of the estate and made an order empowering the Public Trustee to sell the estate’s 29 properties.
JAK instituted Suit No 1497 of 2002 against Musa and Salim.
JAK obtained judgment in default of appearance against Musa and Salim.
JAK instituted Originating Summons No 567 of 2003 against BTT and the Public Trustee.
JAK’s application in Originating Summons No 567 of 2003 was dismissed.
Trial commenced.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs did not repudiate the contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Anticipatory breach
      • Repudiation of contract
  2. Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that JAK misrepresented to the plaintiffs that the members of the M & S group were the only beneficiaries of the Will.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Refund of Deposits

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Universal Cargo Carriers Corporation v CitatiQueen's BenchYes[1957] 2 QB 401England and WalesCited for the test of whether an intention is sufficiently evinced by conduct to constitute repudiation of a contract.
Lovelock v FranklynQueen's BenchYes(1846) 8 QB 371; 115 ER 916England and WalesCited as an example of breach of contract where a vendor sells a property to another party before the agreed period.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
O 28 r 10 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2004 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Deposits
  • Repudiation
  • Misrepresentation
  • Beneficiaries
  • Encumbrances
  • Public Trustee
  • Will
  • Estate

15.2 Keywords

  • contract
  • property
  • deposit
  • misrepresentation
  • singapore
  • high court

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract90
Contract Law85
Misrepresentation70
Property Law50

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Real Estate Law
  • Trusts