Chee Peng Kwan v Toh Swee Hwee: Negligence & Damages in Property Transaction
In Chee Peng Kwan and Another v Toh Swee Hwee Thomas and Others, the High Court of Singapore addressed the issue of damages resulting from a law firm's negligence in failing to exercise a property option on time. The plaintiffs, Chee Peng Kwan and Sim Hui Lin Jackelyn, sued Toh Swee Hwee Thomas, Lim Leng Leng Lilian, Tan Denis, Mitchell David Arthur, and Samantha Poo Siok Mei, partners in a law firm, for breach of contract and negligence. The court, presided over by Teo Guan Siew AR, found the defendants liable and assessed damages, focusing on the principle of remoteness of damage. The court ultimately ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, awarding damages for the losses incurred due to the defendants' negligence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Law firm liable for failing to exercise property option, causing clients' loss. Court addresses remoteness of damage in rising market.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chee Peng Kwan | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Sim Hui Lin Jackelyn | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Toh Swee Hwee Thomas | Defendant | Individual | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Lim Leng Leng Lilian | Defendant | Individual | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Tan Denis | Defendant | Individual | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Mitchell David Arthur | Defendant | Individual | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost | |
| Samantha Poo Siok Mei | Defendant | Individual | Judgment Against Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Teo Guan Siew | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs intended to purchase a condominium unit in "The Seafront on Meyer" to stay close to family.
- Plaintiffs retained the defendants as their solicitors for the purchase.
- Defendants failed to exercise the option to purchase the unit on time.
- Developer refused to allow the plaintiffs to exercise the option out of time.
- Plaintiffs eventually purchased the same unit at a higher price after a year.
- Plaintiffs sued the defendants for breach of contract and negligence.
5. Formal Citations
- Chee Peng Kwan and Another v Toh Swee Hwee Thomas and Others, Suit 423/2008, NA 5/2009, [2009] SGHC 141
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Launch of "The Seafront on Meyer" | |
| Due date for exercising option for unit #22-09 | |
| Defendants delivered the option signed by the plaintiffs to the developer one day late | |
| Lee & Lee wrote to the developer’s solicitors to attempt to purchase unit #23-09 | |
| Lee & Lee wrote to the developer’s solicitors to attempt to purchase unit #23-09 | |
| Defendants responded to Lee & Lee | |
| Lee & Lee sent another letter to the developer’s solicitors requesting that unit #23-09 be released for sale to the plaintiffs | |
| Lee & Lee communicated to the defendants the intention of their clients to buy alternative unit #20-12 | |
| Developer decided to release unit #23-09 for sale to the public | |
| Plaintiffs purchased unit #23-09 at $3.609 million | |
| Plaintiffs commenced proceedings against the defendants | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment amended to remove the first defendant from the case title |
7. Legal Issues
- Remoteness of Damage
- Outcome: The court held that the loss claimed by the plaintiffs was not too remote and was recoverable.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- (1854) 9 Exch 341
- [2008] 2 SLR 623
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found the defendants liable for breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the defendants liable for negligence.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Conveyancing
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Legal
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hadley v Baxendale | N/A | Yes | (1854) 9 Exch 341 | England and Wales | Cited for the principles of remoteness of damage in contract law. |
| Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd & Anor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR 623 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the principles of remoteness of damage as laid down in Hadley v Baxendale. |
| Simpson v Grove Tompkins & Co | English Court of Appeal | Yes | (The Times, 17 May 1982) | England and Wales | Cited for applying the rule in Hadley v Baxendale in the context of a solicitor’s negligence in a conveyancing transaction; distinguished on facts. |
| Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ld v Newman Industries Ld | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1949] 2 KB 528 | England and Wales | Cited for the modern restatement of the rule in Hadley v Baxendale by Asquith LJ. |
| Kpohraror v Woolwich Building Society | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 4 All ER 119 | England and Wales | Cited for the view that the starting point for any application of Hadley v Baxendale is the extent of the shared knowledge of both parties when the contract was made. |
| Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping Inc (The Achilleas) | House of Lords | Yes | [2009] 1 AC 61 | England and Wales | Cited for Lord Hoffmann’s reasoning on the concept of assumption of responsibility as the foundation of the principle that damages that are too remote are not recoverable. |
| South Australia Asset Management Corp v York Montague Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1997] AC 191 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that one must first determine whether the loss in question is of a “kind” or “type” for which the contract-breaker ought fairly to be taken to have accepted responsibility. |
| Czarnikow v Koufos, The Heron II | House of Lords | Yes | [1969] 1 AC 350 | England and Wales | Cited for the debate as to what is the precise degree of probability of loss required under the rule in Hadley v Baxendale. |
| Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming Eric | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR 782 | Singapore | Cited for the concept of remoteness of damages as a necessary limitation imposed by the law to protect the contract-breaker from infinite damages. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Remoteness of Damage
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
- Property Transaction
- Option to Purchase
- Mitigation of Loss
- Reasonable Contemplation
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- contract
- property
- damages
- remoteness
- solicitor
- conveyancing
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Damages | 80 |
| Contract Law | 75 |
| Conveyance | 65 |
| Property Law | 60 |
| Negligence | 50 |
| Misrepresentation | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Negligence
- Property Law
- Civil Procedure