Yuen Chow Hin v ERA Realty: Agency by Estoppel & Agent's Duty of Disclosure in Property Sale

In Yuen Chow Hin and Another v ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, Yuen Chow Hin and Wong Wai Fan, against ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd. The plaintiffs sued for breach of contract, alleging that ERA's agent, Jeremy, acted in conflict of interest by facilitating the sale of their property to his superior's wife, Natassha Sadiq, who then resold it for a significant profit. The court, presided over by Justice Choo Han Teck, found that ERA was liable for the agent's misconduct and ordered ERA to pay the plaintiffs $257,000, representing the profit made by Natassha, plus disbursements, expenses, and costs on an indemnity basis. The court emphasized the fiduciary duty of property agents to act in their client's best interests and to disclose any potential conflicts of interest.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for the plaintiffs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Yuen Chow Hin sues ERA Realty for breach of agent's duty. Court finds ERA liable for agent's secret profit scheme, emphasizing agent's fiduciary duty.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
ERA Realty Network Pte LtdDefendantCorporationJudgment against DefendantLost
Yuen Chow HinPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Wong Wai FanPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Leonard Loo Peng CheeLeonard Loo & Co
Gan Kam YuinBih Li & Lee

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiffs engaged Jeremy, an agent of ERA Realty, to sell their condominium.
  2. Jeremy was supervised by Mike, a Divisional Director at ERA Realty.
  3. Jeremy presented Natassha Sadiq, Mike's wife, as a buyer for the flat at $688,000.
  4. Plaintiffs were unaware of the relationship between Jeremy, Mike, and Natassha.
  5. Natassha resold the flat for $945,000 shortly after purchasing it from the plaintiffs.
  6. Mike placed advertisements for the sale of the flat without the plaintiffs' knowledge.
  7. The option form had the defendant’s logo printed on it.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Yuen Chow Hin and Another v ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd, Suit 137/2008, [2009] SGHC 28

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiffs appointed Jeremy as agent to sell flat.
Jeremy informed the second plaintiff about a client interested in buying the flat for $650,000.
Jeremy claimed the option and commission agreement were signed.
Mike placed an advertisement in the Straits Times.
Plaintiffs granted an option to Natassha Sadiq to buy the flat for $688,000 and signed a commission agreement.
Mike placed an advertisement in the Straits Times.
Natassha granted an option to Teo Su Kee to purchase the flat for $945,000.
Teo Su Kee exercised his right of option.
Natassha exercised her right of option to buy the plaintiffs’ flat.
Suit filed (Suit 137/2008).
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Fiduciary Duty
    • Outcome: The court found that the agent breached their fiduciary duty by creating a conflict of interest and failing to disclose material information, resulting in a secret profit.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Conflict of interest
      • Secret profit
      • Failure to disclose material information
    • Related Cases:
      • [1993] 1 AC 205
      • [1999] 1 SLR 190
  2. Agency by Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant had held out the associate as its agent, and was therefore bound by the agent's conduct.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Breach of Fiduciary Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Horace Brenton Kelly v Margot Cooper and AnotherPrivy CouncilYes[1993] 1 AC 205United KingdomDistinguished on the facts; the court in the cited case found no dishonesty or bad faith on the part of the agent, unlike the present case.
ERA Realty Pte Ltd v Pushpha Rajaram Lakhiani and AnorN/AYes[1999] 1 SLR 190SingaporeDistinguished on the facts; the court in the cited case addressed the duty of fidelity when a housing agent acts for multiple potential purchasers, whereas the present case concerns a conflict of interest between the agent and the vendor.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
No applicable statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Agency by estoppel
  • Fiduciary duty
  • Conflict of interest
  • Secret profit
  • Real estate agent
  • Associate agreement
  • Duty of disclosure

15.2 Keywords

  • Agency
  • Fiduciary Duty
  • Real Estate
  • Conflict of Interest
  • Singapore
  • Property Agent

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Agency Law95
Conflict of Interest85
Fiduciary Duties80
Breach of Duty75
Contract Law70
Secret Profit70
Misrepresentation60
Fraud and Deceit60
Housing Agency50
Commercial Disputes40
Estoppel30
Real Estate30
Commercial Law30
Inducement of Breach of Contract20

16. Subjects

  • Agency
  • Contract
  • Real Estate
  • Fiduciary Duty