Mohamed Amin v Lim Choon Thye: Collective Sale Dispute over Unstamped Agreement
In Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib and Others v Lim Choon Thye and Others, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute arising from a collective sale agreement for Regent Court. The seventh and eighth defendants filed a summons seeking declarations that the sale and purchase agreement was inadmissible due to lack of stamping and that a prior court order was unjust. The court dismissed the summons, finding the application unnecessary and that the lack of stamping did not invalidate the court's jurisdiction or constitute fraud. The court ordered the seventh and eighth defendants to pay costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The Present Summons was dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Collective sale dispute involving Regent Court. The court addressed the admissibility of an unstamped sale agreement and its impact on prior orders.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib | Plaintiff | Individual | Successful in defending the summons | Won | Gary Low, Benedict Teo |
| Foo Chuan Kwee | Plaintiff | Individual | Successful in defending the summons | Won | Gary Low, Benedict Teo |
| Chin Thean Seong | Plaintiff | Individual | Successful in defending the summons | Won | Gary Low, Benedict Teo |
| Lim Choon Thye | Defendant | Individual | Neutral Stand | Neutral | |
| Lau Puay Huang alias Lau Phuay Huang | Defendant | Individual | Neutral Stand | Neutral | |
| Executor/Administrator of the Estate of Tan Kong Hock, Deceased | Defendant | Other | Neutral Stand | Neutral | |
| Lim Kim Yau | Defendant | Individual | Neutral Stand | Neutral | |
| Lim Wee Thiam | Defendant | Individual | Neutral Stand | Neutral | |
| Khin Maung Tin | Defendant | Individual | Neutral Stand | Neutral | |
| Kailash Nath Rai | Defendant | Individual | Summons dismissed with costs | Lost | Vijay Kumar Rai |
| Vijay Kumar Rai | Defendant | Individual | Summons dismissed with costs | Lost | Vijay Kumar Rai |
| Seah Chin Kong | Defendant | Individual | Neutral Stand | Neutral | |
| Ee Ah Choo | Defendant | Individual | Neutral Stand | Neutral |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Woo Bih Li | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Gary Low | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Benedict Teo | Drew & Napier LLC |
| Vijay Kumar Rai | Arbiters' Inc Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- The plaintiffs brought the application as the authorised representatives of the consenting subsidiary proprietors.
- The plaintiffs sought the Board’s approval for the collective sale of Regent Court.
- The seventh and eighth defendants filed Summons 396/2008 to strike out OS 17/2008.
- The Board dismissed the application because the SPA (and the Supplemental Agreement) are not stamped.
- The Remaining Minority filed the Present Summons seeking declarations that the sale and purchase agreement was inadmissible.
- The plaintiffs stated that they were not aware of the lack of stamping of the SPA prior to 22 December 2008.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohamed Amin bin Mohamed Taib and Others v Lim Choon Thye and Others, OS 17/2008, [2009] SGHC 216
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Resolution passed approving the collective sale of Regent Court. | |
| Reserve price increased to $34m. | |
| Collective sale agreement signed by subsidiary proprietors of 42 out of the 49 units in Regent Court. | |
| Landquest Pte Ltd offered to purchase Regent Court at the price of $34m. | |
| Sale and purchase agreement entered into with Regent Development Pte Ltd as the nominee of LPL. | |
| Plaintiffs appointed representatives for the purpose of applying to the Strata Titles Board for its approval of the collective sale. | |
| STB Application was filed. | |
| Hearing of the STB Application commenced. | |
| The Board heard arguments on the ninth and tenth defendants’ objection on the ground of financial loss. | |
| The Board dismissed the STB Application. | |
| Written grounds for the Board’s decision were delivered. | |
| Purchaser furnished an undertaking to pay the ninth and tenth defendants the sum of $93,935.75. | |
| Plaintiffs filed an appeal. | |
| Summons 396/2008 filed by the Remaining Minority to strike out OS 17/2008. | |
| Summons 396/2008 and OS 17/2008 are heard. Prakash J dismisses Summons 396/2008. | |
| Order of Prakash J in OS 17/2008. She sets aside the decision of the Board and remits the plaintiffs’ application for approval of the collective sale to the Board for hearing. | |
| The Board received a letter from the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore stating that the agreement relating to the collective sale of Regent Court has not been stamped. | |
| The Board recommenced the hearing of the application pursuant to the 30 October 2008 Order. | |
| The Board directed the applicants to pursue a request which the applicants had made earlier, ie, that the purchasers be given a day to stamp the SPA. | |
| The Board dismissed the application because the SPA (and the Supplemental Agreement) are not stamped. | |
| The plaintiffs file BC 137/2009 in respect of the costs granted to them in Summons 396/2008. | |
| The Remaining Minority file the Present Summons. | |
| Counsel for each side appear before Prakash J on the issue of costs for OS 17/2008 and for hearing of the Present Summons. Prakash J declines to hear the latter which is adjourned. | |
| BC 137/2009 is taxed. Later in the same day, the Present Summons 3938/2009 is heard by Woo J. It is adjourned to 18 August 2009 for the plaintiffs to file an affidavit as to whether they knew that the SPA was not stamped. | |
| The plaintiffs’ affidavit is filed and served. | |
| Continued hearing of Present Summons. It is dismissed with costs. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of unstamped documents
- Outcome: The court held that an unstamped document is not void ab initio but is inadmissible in evidence until the appropriate stamp duty is paid.
- Category: Procedural
- Jurisdiction of the court
- Outcome: The court held that it had jurisdiction to make the 30 October 2008 Order.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Fraud
- Outcome: The court found that there was no fraud on the part of the plaintiffs.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the Sale & Purchase Agreement and the Supplemental Agreement were inadmissible in evidence.
- Declaration that the Order of Court dated 30th October 2008 was not just.
- Order that the Order of Court dated 30th October 2008 be set aside.
- Order that the Plaintiffs’ application by OS No. 17/2008/V be dismissed.
- Order that the Order of Court dated 9th October 2008 in Summons Entered No. 396/2008/V be set aside.
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unknown | High Court | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR 193 | Singapore | Sets out the background to OS 17/2008. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Collective sale
- Stamp duty
- Strata Titles Board
- Sale and purchase agreement
- Regent Court
- Stamping
- Admissibility
- Jurisdiction
15.2 Keywords
- Collective sale
- Stamp duty
- Regent Court
- Unstamped agreement
- Admissibility of evidence
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Real Property
- Stamp Duty
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Collective Sale
- Property Law
- Stamp Duty