Singh Chiranjeev v Joseph Mathew: Specific Performance of Property Sale Agreement

In Singh Chiranjeev and Another v Joseph Mathew and Others, the High Court of Singapore ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Singh Chiranjeev and Gulati Jasmine Kaur, ordering specific performance of an agreement for the sale of a property against the first and second defendants, Joseph Mathew and Mercy Joseph. The court found that a binding contract existed based on email correspondence and the deposit of a cheque, despite the absence of a signed option to purchase. The plaintiffs had brought a claim for specific performance and damages, while the third and fourth defendants, Helene Ong Geok Tin and Dennis Wee Properties Pte Ltd, were joined due to allegations of unauthorized action. The court ordered the first and second defendants to pay damages of $15,510.05 to the plaintiffs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiffs

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court ordered specific performance of a property sale agreement, finding a binding contract existed despite the lack of a signed option.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Joseph MathewDefendantIndividualOrder to grant Option to Purchase and pay damagesLost
Mercy JosephDefendantIndividualOrder to grant Option to Purchase and pay damagesLost
Singh ChiranjeevPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Gulati Jasmine KaurPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Helene Ong Geok TinDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedDismissed
Dennis Wee Properties Pte LtdDefendantCorporationClaim DismissedDismissed

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Andrew AngJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Leslie NettoNetto & Magin LLC
Boo Moh ChehKurup & Boo
Foo Say TunWee Tay & Lim
Brian CamposWee Tay & Lim

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs offered to buy the property for $506,000.
  2. Third defendant told the first plaintiff that the first defendant had agreed to his offer.
  3. Third defendant deposited the 1% cheque into the first defendant’s bank account.
  4. First defendant sent an e-mail canceling his plan to sell the apartment.
  5. Plaintiffs refused to accept a cheque for $5,060 from the first defendant.
  6. The first defendant instructed the third defendant to deposit the 1% cheque into his bank account.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Singh Chiranjeev and Another v Joseph Mathew and Others, Suit 521/2007, [2008] SGHC 222

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiffs first viewed the Property
Plaintiffs viewed the Property again and made an offer
Third defendant sent the first e-mail to the first defendant
Third defendant sent the second e-mail to the first defendant
First defendant replied with the third e-mail
Third defendant replied with the fourth e-mail
Agreement for the sale and purchase of the Property was made
Third defendant deposited the 1% cheque into the first defendant’s bank account
First plaintiff’s account was debited
Third defendant informed the first defendant about the cheque deposit
Third defendant informed the first plaintiff about unexpected developments
First defendant sent an e-mail canceling the plan to sell the apartment
Third defendant sent an e-mail informing the first plaintiff that the deposit would be returned
First plaintiff checked his bank statement and saw that his account had been debited
First plaintiff met the first defendant and refused to accept the returned cheque
First defendant sent another e-mail stating he is not selling the property
First defendant denied agreeing to sell the Property
Plaintiffs commenced this suit
Plaintiffs lodged a caveat against the property
First and second defendants filed their opening statement
Transcript date
Transcript date
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the first and second defendants breached a binding contract to sell the property to the plaintiffs.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to grant option to purchase
      • Refusal to complete sale of property
  2. Authority of Agent
    • Outcome: The court found that the third defendant had the authority to deposit the 1% cheque into the first defendant's bank account, binding the first and second defendants.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Implied authority
      • Actual authority
  3. Compliance with s 6(d) of the Civil Law Act
    • Outcome: The court found that the e-mails, read with the 1% cheque, were sufficient to constitute written memoranda of the binding agreement to sell the Property. The court also found that there was part performance of the contract by virtue of the first defendant accepting payment of the 1% cheque into his bank account.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Written memorandum
      • Part performance

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Specific Performance
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Specific Performance
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Transactions

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Yeo Gek Lang v Wee AliceUnknownYes[1978-1979] SLR 127SingaporeDistinguished from the present case because that case concerned an agreement to sell property 'subject to contract' and there was no evidence that the appellant’s solicitors had been authorised to negotiate and conclude a contract for her, or that she ratified any unauthorised bargain struck by her solicitors.
Kwong Kum Sun (S) Pte Ltd v Lian Soon Siew & OrsCourt of AppealYes[1984-1985] SLR 98SingaporeCited for the general rule relating to the creation of a binding agreement was that the parties must have finished reaching an agreement so that it was possible to infer an intention on the part of both of them to be bound immediately.
SM Integrated Transware Pte Ltd v Schenker Singapore (Pte) LtdUnknownYes[2005] 2 SLR 651SingaporeCited for the principle that the plaintiffs may rely on more than one document to constitute the necessary memorandum to comply with s 6 of the Civil Law Act and that s 6(d) does not require a signature to have been made by hand; an e-mail suffices.
Lee Christina v Lee Eunice & Anor (executors of the estate of Lee Teck Soon)Court of AppealYes[1993] 3 SLR 8SingaporeCited for the principle that the writing relied on to satisfy s 40(1) of the Law of Property Act 1925 must contain all the terms of the parties’ agreement and must specify the four ‘P’s — the parties, the property, the price plus any other provisions.
Tan Kia Poh v Hong Leong Finance LtdCourt of AppealYes[1994] 1 SLR 270SingaporeCited for the principle that allowing submissions to be made on matters not previously specifically pleaded might result in material prejudice to the other party because it would have had no opportunity to produce evidence that might effectively counter these submissions.
Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte LtdUnknownYes[2004] 4 SLR 258SingaporeCited for the principle that payment of a cheque into an account was an act referable to the contract to sell the Property and there was thus part performance.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Option to Purchase
  • 1% cheque
  • Deposit
  • Specific performance
  • Written memorandum
  • Part performance

15.2 Keywords

  • property
  • contract
  • sale
  • agreement
  • option
  • deposit
  • specific performance

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law95
Agency Law60
Real Estate40

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Real Estate
  • Agency