Lim Kau Tee v Lee Kay Li: Breach of Quiet Enjoyment Covenant & Fraudulent Misrepresentation in Tenancy Agreement
In Lim Kau Tee and Ang Soi Hiang v Lee Kay Li, the High Court of Singapore ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Lim Kau Tee and Ang Soi Hiang, awarding them interlocutory judgment against the defendant, Lee Kay Li, for repudiating a tenancy agreement. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendant wrongfully vacated their HDB shophouse premises before the lease term expired. The defendant counterclaimed, asserting that the plaintiffs had misrepresented the terms of the tenancy and breached the covenant for quiet enjoyment. The court found the defendant's claims of misrepresentation and breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment to be without merit, concluding that the defendant had repudiated the tenancy agreement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Interlocutory judgment awarded to the plaintiffs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court found Lee Kay Li liable for repudiating a tenancy agreement, rejecting his claims of misrepresentation and breach of quiet enjoyment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lim Kau Tee | Plaintiff | Individual | Interlocutory judgment awarded | Won | Stephen Tok |
| Ang Soi Hiang | Plaintiff | Individual | Interlocutory judgment awarded | Won | Stephen Tok |
| Lee Kay Li | Defendant | Individual | Counterclaim Dismissed | Lost | Sunil Singh Gill |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lai Siu Chiu | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Stephen Tok | Tok |
| Sunil Singh Gill | David Lim and Partners |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs owned a HDB shophouse, using the second storey as an office.
- Defendant was a tenant of the ground floor under a tenancy agreement.
- Plaintiffs sought HDB's consent to change the use of the second storey.
- HDB required strengthening works for the change of use.
- Plaintiffs informed the defendant of the proposed works, requiring him to vacate temporarily.
- Defendant requested compensation for moving out, which the plaintiffs refused.
- Defendant vacated the premises, claiming misrepresentation and breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment.
5. Formal Citations
- Lim Kau Tee and Another v Lee Kay Li, Suit 499/2004, [2005] SGHC 162
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs purchased the property from the Post Office Savings Bank. | |
| Defendant became a tenant of the ground floor under a tenancy agreement. | |
| First tenancy agreement was dated. | |
| Plaintiffs were informed by a HDB technician about air conditioning unit issues. | |
| Plaintiffs' solicitors wrote to HDB for consent to change the property's use. | |
| HDB replied, stating no objections to change of use if structural works were done. | |
| Plaintiffs' solicitors requested change of use without structural works. | |
| Second tenancy agreement was dated. | |
| URA granted permission for change of use of the second storey. | |
| Plaintiffs' solicitors again wrote to HDB for a response. | |
| Plaintiffs informed the defendant of proposed strengthening works. | |
| Defendant vacated the premises. | |
| Judgment was delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs' actions did not amount to a substantial interference with the defendant's use and enjoyment of the premises, and therefore there was no breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Interference with tenant's use of premises
- Substantial interference with enjoyment
- Related Cases:
- [1963] 1 QB 499
- [1891] 2 QB 680
- [1956] 2 QB 99
- (1883) 11 QB 695
- [1898] 2 Ch 394
- [1916] 2 Ch 255
- [1902] 2 KB 351
- [1989] 2 EGLR 49
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiffs did not make a fraudulent misrepresentation to the defendant, and even if they had, the defendant was not induced by it to enter into the tenancy agreement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- False representation of fact
- Inducement to enter contract
- Knowledge of falsity
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 3 SLR 405
- (1789) 3 Term Rep 51
- (1889) 14 App Cas 337
- [1941] 2 All ER 205
- (1882) 20 Ch D 27
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Rescission of Contract
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Tenancy Disputes
- Misrepresentation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Klerk-Elias Liza v KT Chan Clinic Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR 417 | Singapore | Applied the principle of repudiation to a tenancy agreement. |
| Tan Soo Leng David v Lim Thian Chai Charles | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 923 | Singapore | Clarified the application of contractual principles to tenancy agreements, particularly repudiation. |
| Kenny v Preen | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1963] 1 QB 499 | England and Wales | Discussed the scope of the implied covenant for quiet enjoyment and what constitutes a breach. |
| Harrison, Ainslie & Co v Muncaster | UK Court of Appeal | Yes | [1891] 2 QB 680 | England and Wales | Established that a covenant for quiet enjoyment applies to interference with the enjoyment of the thing demised, not just the title. |
| Owen v Gadd | UK Court of Appeal | Yes | [1956] 2 QB 99 | England and Wales | Held that whether the quiet enjoyment of the premises has been interrupted is a question of fact. |
| Howard v Maitland | UK Court of Appeal | Yes | (1883) 11 QB 695 | England and Wales | The mere likelihood of interruption is not enough to breach the covenant for quiet enjoyment. |
| Manchester, Sheffield & Lincolnshire Railway Company v Anderson | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1898] 2 Ch 394 | England and Wales | A temporary inconvenience caused by a lessor, not depriving his tenant of a right of way, but in rendering his access less convenient than it was, is not a breach of covenant for quiet enjoyment. |
| Phelps v City of London Corporation | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1916] 2 Ch 255 | England and Wales | A temporary inconvenience is not a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. |
| Budd-Scott v Daniell | Court of King's Bench | Yes | [1902] 2 KB 351 | England and Wales | The breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment can be of a temporary nature so long as the interference is substantial. |
| Sampson v Floyd | UK Court of Appeal | Yes | [1989] 2 EGLR 49 | England and Wales | Eviction need not be physical; a landlord's conduct can amount to a breach of the covenant for quiet enjoyment. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR 405 | Singapore | Outlines the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Pasley v Freeman | Court of King's Bench | Yes | (1789) 3 Term Rep 51 | England and Wales | Established that a person can be held liable in tort to another, if he knowingly or recklessly makes a false statement to that other with the intent that it would be acted upon, and that other does act upon it and suffers damage. |
| Derry v Peek | House of Lords | Yes | (1889) 14 App Cas 337 | United Kingdom | Held that in an action of deceit the plaintiff must prove actual fraud. |
| Bradford Building Society v Borders | House of Lords | Yes | [1941] 2 All ER 205 | United Kingdom | Set out the essentials of the tort of deceit. |
| Smith v Chadwick | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1882) 20 Ch D 27 | England and Wales | A representation does not render a contract voidable unless it was intended to cause and has in fact caused the representee to make the contract. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Tenancy Agreement
- Covenant for Quiet Enjoyment
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Repudiation
- Strengthening Works
- Change of Use
- HDB
- Interlocutory Judgment
15.2 Keywords
- tenancy agreement
- quiet enjoyment
- misrepresentation
- repudiation
- landlord
- tenant
- Singapore
- HDB
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Landlord and Tenant
- Misrepresentation
17. Areas of Law
- Landlord and Tenant Law
- Tort Law
- Contract Law