Ho Soo Fong v Standard Chartered Bank: Wrongful Caveat Refusal & Foreclosure

In Ho Soo Fong and Another v Standard Chartered Bank, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding damages claimed by Ho Soo Fong, Lin Siew Khim, and Ho Soo Kheng against Standard Chartered Bank for the bank's wrongful refusal to withdraw caveats lodged on their properties. The appellants argued that this refusal led to higher interest rates and the forced sale of a property. Andrew Ang J dismissed the appeal concerning losses from the forced sale of 179 Syed Alwi Road, finding that the bank's actions did not directly cause the foreclosure. The appellants were awarded 50% of their costs of the appeals, taking into account successful appeals regarding other claims.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal dismissed regarding losses from the forced sale of 179 Syed Alwi Road. Appellants awarded 50% of their costs of the appeals.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding damages for Standard Chartered Bank's wrongful refusal to withdraw a caveat, leading to a property foreclosure. The court examined foreseeability and impecuniosity.

1.7 Decision Date

29 May 2006

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ho Soo Fong	Appellant	Individual	Appeal dismissed in part	Partial	Chong Chi Chuin Christopher, Loy Sye Ling
Lin Siew Khim	Appellant	Individual	Appeal dismissed in part	Partial	Chong Chi Chuin Christopher, Loy Sye Ling
Ho Soo Kheng	Appellant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral	Chong Chi Chuin Christopher, Loy Sye Ling
Standard Chartered Bank	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal upheld in part	Partial	Loo Ngan Chor, Gan Theng Chong

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Andrew Ang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Chong Chi Chuin Christopher	Kenneth Tan Partnership
Loy Sye Ling	Kenneth Tan Partnership
Loo Ngan Chor	Lee & Lee
Gan Theng Chong	Lee & Lee

4. Facts

Standard Chartered Bank offered overdraft facilities to the appellants secured by first legal mortgages on their properties.
The appellants terminated the facility agreements due to disagreements over conditions precedent.
Standard Chartered Bank refused to withdraw caveats lodged against the properties despite repeated demands.
The appellants claimed the refusal prevented them from refinancing at lower interest rates.
The Bank of East Asia foreclosed on a property owned by the appellants due to outstanding overdraft facilities.
The appellants alleged the refinancing of 26F Poh Huat Road was to reduce the overdraft with BEA.
The court found that Standard Chartered Bank was not informed about the risk of foreclosure by BEA.

5. Formal Citations

Ho Soo Fong and Another v Standard Chartered Bank, OS 259/2004, RA 355/2005, [2006] SGHC 90

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2002-10-07	Appellants terminated the three facility agreements.
2004-06-30	Respondent withdrew the caveats.
2004-01-01	Appellants applied to the High Court for orders to withdraw the caveats.
2006-05-30	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Wrongful Refusal to Withdraw Caveat
- Outcome: The court found the respondent had wrongfully refused to withdraw the caveat but the losses claimed were not attributable to the refusal.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reasonable cause for lodging caveat
  - Pecuniary loss attributable to refusal
Causation of Loss
- Outcome: The court determined that the losses from the forced sale were not attributable to the respondent's refusal to withdraw the caveat, and the appellants' impecuniosity was a contributing factor.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Foreseeability of loss
  - Impecuniosity as a cause of loss

8. Remedies Sought

Withdrawal of Caveats
Damages for Wrongful Refusal to Withdraw Caveats

9. Cause of Actions

Wrongful Refusal to Withdraw Caveat

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Real Estate Law

11. Industries

Banking
Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Khushvinder Singh Chopra v Mookka Pillai Rajagopal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 589	Singapore	Cited for the ambit of the statutory remedy in section 128(1) of the Land Titles Act.
Owners of Dredger Liesbosch v Owners of Steamship Edison	House of Lords	Yes	[1933] AC 449	United Kingdom	Cited regarding the principle that a defendant is not responsible for damage attributable to the claimant’s impecuniosity.
Mookka Pillai Rajagopal v Khushvinder Singh Chopra	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 3 SLR 457	Singapore	Cited for ordering the appellant to withdraw his caveats and directing an inquiry be held as to the compensation, if any, pursuant to s 128 of the Act.
R v Lucas	N/A	Yes	[1981] QB 720	N/A	Cited for principles regarding lies of a witness.
Clippens Oil case	House of Lords	Yes	[1907] AC 291	United Kingdom	Cited regarding the rule that the wrongdoer must take his victim as he finds him.
Lagden v O’Connor	House of Lords	Yes	[2004] 1 AC 1067	United Kingdom	Cited regarding the rule in Liesbosch that a defendant is not responsible for damage attributable to the claimant’s impecuniosity could no longer be regarded as good law.
Dodd Properties Ltd v Canterbury City Council	N/A	Yes	[1980] 1 WLR 433	N/A	Cited regarding the application of the Liesbosch principle should be restricted to cases where the impecuniosity was unforeseeable.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Caveat
Refinancing
Foreclosure
Impecuniosity
Foreseeability
Wrongful Refusal
Land Titles Act

15.2 Keywords

caveat
wrongful refusal
foreclosure
mortgage
land titles act
singapore
standard chartered bank

16. Subjects

Land Law
Banking Law
Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Land Law
Caveats
Mortgages
Civil Procedure