Teo Beng Ngoh v Quek Kheng Leong Nicky: Dispute over Property Sale and Purchase Agreement

In a dispute before the High Court of Singapore on December 9, 2008, Justice Lai Siu Chiu ruled in favor of Teo Beng Ngoh, Teo Yeow Khoon, Teo Yeow Hing, and Teo Jean Seng Holdings Pte Ltd (the Vendors) against Quek Kheng Leong Nicky and Lee Pheng (the Purchasers) concerning the sale and purchase of a property. The Vendors claimed the Purchasers were in breach of the Option to Purchase by failing to make timely payment, while the Purchasers sought specific performance. The court declared the Purchasers in repudiatory breach and dismissed their claim for specific performance.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the Vendors

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Dispute over a property sale where the Purchasers refused to pay due to caveats. The court ruled in favor of the Vendors, declaring the Purchasers in breach.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Teo Beng NgohPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Teo Yeow KhoonPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Teo Yeow HingPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Teo Jean Seng Holdings Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Quek Kheng Leong NickyDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Lee PhengDefendantIndividualClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Philip Ling Daw HoongWong Tan & Molly Lim LLC
Angeline JansenWong Tan & Molly Lim LLC
Parveen KaurMadhavan Partnership
Murugaiyan SivakumarMadhavan Partnership

4. Facts

  1. The Vendors and Purchasers entered into an Option to Purchase for a property at No. 13, Jalan Sindor.
  2. The Purchasers paid 5% of the purchase price as a deposit.
  3. The Purchasers were given vacant possession of the property for renovation and occupation.
  4. The Purchasers refused to pay the remaining 94% of the purchase price due to caveats lodged against a parent lot.
  5. The Vendors' solicitors procured partial withdrawals of the caveats.
  6. The Vendors terminated the Option due to the Purchasers' failure to pay.
  7. The Certificate of Title was issued without the disputed caveats endorsed.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Teo Beng Ngoh and Others v Quek Kheng Leong Nicky and Another and Another Matter, OS 1833/2007, 72/2008, [2008] SGHC 228

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Option to Purchase dated
Purchasers exercised the Option
Vacant possession of the property given to Purchasers
Purchasers given permission to occupy the property
Vendors requested payment of 94% of the purchase price
Purchasers' solicitors requested removal of Lot 16275 caveats
Vendors' solicitors demanded payment by noon of 12 November 2007
Vendors accepted Purchasers’ repudiation of the Option
Purchasers' solicitors sent cashier's orders for completion sum
Vendors' solicitors rejected the payment
Decision Date
Certificate of Title for the property was issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court held that the Purchasers were in repudiatory breach of the Option to Purchase.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Repudiation of contract
      • Failure to make timely payment
    • Related Cases:
      • [1989] SLR 639
      • [1996] 3 SLR 310
      • [1992] 2 SLR 390
  2. Specific Performance
    • Outcome: The court dismissed the Purchasers' claim for specific performance.
    • Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration of breach of contract
  2. Termination of Option
  3. Reinstatement of property
  4. Damages
  5. Specific performance

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Specific Performance

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Behzadi v Shaftesbury Hotels LtdUK Court of AppealYes[1991] 2 All ER 477United KingdomCited regarding the reasonableness of the notice period for payment when making time of the essence.
See Bee Hoon v Quah Poe HoeN/AYes[1989] SLR 639SingaporeCited as authority that the Purchasers were in repudiatory breach of the Option when their solicitors insisted their liability for payment had not arisen, thereby evincing an intention not to be bound by the terms of the Option.
Siti & Anor v Lee Kay LiN/AYes[1996] 3 SLR 310SingaporeCited as authority that the Purchasers were in repudiatory breach of the Option when their solicitors insisted their liability for payment had not arisen, thereby evincing an intention not to be bound by the terms of the Option.
Tian Teck Construction Pte Ltd v Exclusiv Auto Pte LtdN/AYes[1992] 2 SLR 390SingaporeCited as authority that the Purchasers were in repudiatory breach of the Option when their solicitors insisted their liability for payment had not arisen, thereby evincing an intention not to be bound by the terms of the Option.
Pacific Rim Investments Pte Ltd v Lam Seng Tong & AnorN/AYes[1995] 3 SLR 1SingaporeCited regarding relief against forfeiture in sale and purchase agreements.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Conveyancing & Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Option to Purchase
  • Vacant Possession
  • Caveat
  • Repudiatory Breach
  • Specific Performance
  • Certificate of Title
  • Parent Lot
  • Amalgamation
  • Subdivision

15.2 Keywords

  • property
  • sale
  • purchase
  • contract
  • breach
  • caveat
  • specific performance

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract80
Real Estate75
Contract Law70
Option to Purchase70
Sale and Purchase Agreement65
Specific performance60
Conveyancing Practice55
Damages50
Estoppel30
Costs20

16. Subjects

  • Contract Dispute
  • Property Dispute
  • Sale and Purchase Agreement