Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell: Damages Assessment for Lease Breach & Misrepresentation

In Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd, the Singapore High Court assessed damages owed to Thode Gerd Walter for Mintwell's breach of two leases and negligent misrepresentation. The court awarded Thode Gerd Walter $211,492.89, primarily for expenses related to relocating his business after Mintwell breached the leases by failing to disclose a prior mortgage on the property. The claims included expenses incurred in relation to the move to a new premises, expenses incurred for one of the units, labour costs, and legal costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Damages awarded to the plaintiff.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court assesses damages for Mintwell's breach of lease and misrepresentation, awarding Thode Gerd Walter $211,492.89 for relocation expenses.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Thode Gerd WalterPlaintiffIndividualDamages AwardedWon
Mintwell Industry Pte LtdDefendantCorporationDamages AssessedLost
Seah Bak KheowDefendantIndividualDamages AssessedLost
Tan Kee Hock, EddyDefendantIndividual

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Peh Aik HinAssistant RegistrarYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Renu MenonTan Rajah & Cheah
Sugidha NithiTan Rajah & Cheah
Anthony Lee Hwee KhiamBih Li & Lee
Sarah TanBih Li & Lee

4. Facts

  1. Plaintiff leased two units in Mintwell Building from Mintwell.
  2. Mintwell had mortgaged the building to OCBC and covenanted not to lease without consent.
  3. OCBC obtained a court order for vacant possession against Mintwell.
  4. Mintwell leased the units to the plaintiff without OCBC's consent.
  5. Plaintiff was served with a summons for execution of the writ of possession.
  6. Plaintiff vacated the Mintwell Building and leased new premises at Changi South.
  7. Plaintiff sued Mintwell for breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 351 of 2007 (Notice of Appointment for Assessment of Damages No 44 of 2009), [2010] SGHC 33

6. Timeline

DateEvent
OCBC obtained court order against Mintwell for vacant possession.
Lease signed for unit #01-02.
Lease for unit #01-02 commenced.
Writ of possession filed by OCBC.
Lease signed for unit #03-02.
Lease for unit #03-02 commenced.
Plaintiff served with Summons No 3453 of 2006.
Hearing for Summons No 3453 of 2006.
Plaintiff vacated unit #03-02.
Plaintiff entered into lease for Changi South premises.
Plaintiff vacated unit #01-02.
Stay of execution expired.
Expiry date of both leases.
Plaintiff commenced action against the defendants.
Consent judgment entered for the plaintiff against Mintwell for breach of contract.
Interlocutory judgment entered for the plaintiff against Mintwell and Seah for negligent misrepresentation.
Court order for consolidated hearing for assessment of damages.
Hearing of the assessment of damages.
Oral submissions.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: Mintwell found liable for breach of contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to disclose mortgage
      • Premature termination of lease
    • Related Cases:
      • [2009] SGHC 44
  2. Negligent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: Mintwell and Seah found liable for negligent misrepresentation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Misleading statements about property status
  3. Mitigation of Damages
    • Outcome: Plaintiff found to have taken reasonable steps to mitigate losses.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reasonable steps to minimize loss
    • Related Cases:
      • [1912] 1 AC 673
  4. Remoteness of Damage
    • Outcome: Certain legal costs deemed too remote and disallowed.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Foreseeability of losses
      • Causation
    • Related Cases:
      • [1854] 9 Exch 341
      • [1961] 1 AC 388
  5. Proof of Damages
    • Outcome: Plaintiff provided sufficient evidence for most claimed expenses.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Sufficiency of evidence
      • Causation
    • Related Cases:
      • [2008] 2 SLR 623

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligent Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 44SingaporeEstablished the facts of the case and found Seah to be the key controlling mind behind Mintwell.
Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town CorpCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR 909SingaporeCited for the principle that the aim of damages in tort is different from that in contract.
Koufos v C Czarnikow LtdHouse of LordsYes[1969] 1 AC 350United KingdomCited for the test of remoteness of damage in tort.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR 623SingaporeCited for the issue of proof and mitigation of damages and the test of remoteness for contract in Singapore.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming EricHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR 853SingaporeCited for the test of remoteness of damage in tort and contract.
British Westinghouse Electric and Manufacturing Company, Limited v Underground Electric Railways Company of London, LimitedHouse of LordsYes[1912] 1 AC 673United KingdomCited for the principle that a claimant must take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss.
GIB Automation Pte Ltd v Deluge Fire Protection (SEA) Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR 918SingaporeCited for the principle that a claimant must take reasonable steps to mitigate the loss and the onus is on the defendant to show that the claimant has failed to take such steps.
Banco de Portugal v Waterlow and Sons, LimitedHouse of LordsYes[1932] 1 AC 452United KingdomCited for the standard of reasonableness in mitigation.
Grosvenor Hotel Company v HamiltonQueen's BenchYes[1984] 2 QB 836United KingdomCited as an example where a tenant recovered expenses of setting up a new place from the landlord in an action for nuisance.
Payzu, Limited v SaundersCourt of AppealYes[1919] 2 KB 581United KingdomCited for the question of mitigation being a question of fact.
Darbishire v WarrenCourt of AppealYes[1963] 1 WLR 1067United KingdomCited for the principle that the plaintiff is not under any actual obligation to adopt the cheaper method of mitigation.
Cullinane v British “Rema” Manufacturing Co LdCourt of AppealYes[1954] 1 QB 292United KingdomCited for the principle that a claimant cannot recover both expectation and reliance damages at the same time.
Hong Fok Realty Pte Ltd v Bima Investment Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[1992] 2 SLR(R) 834SingaporeCited for the principle that it would be wrong to award a claimant both expectation and reliance damages for the same loss.
CCF Films (London) Ltd v Impact Quadrant Films LtdQueen's BenchYes[1985] 1 QB 16United KingdomCited for the principle that a claimant generally has a discretion to choose between a claim for reliance damages or a claim for expectation damages.
Sunny Metal & Engineering Pte Ltd v Ng Khim Ming EricCourt of AppealYes[2007] 3 SLR 782SingaporeCited for the rule of remoteness embodying legal principles strictly founded upon reasons of policy.
Transfield Shipping Inc v Mercator Shipping IncHouse of LordsYes[2009] 1 AC 61United KingdomDiscussed the rules of remoteness for contract and the shift from the reasonable contemplation approach to one premised on the assumption of responsibility.
Chee Peng Kwan v Toh Swee Hwee ThomasHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 141SingaporeConsidered the difference in approach taken by the Court of Appeal in Robertson Quay and the House of Lords in The Achilleas.
Hadley v BaxendaleCourt of ExchequerYes[1854] 9 Exch 341United KingdomCited for the test of remoteness for contract.
Victoria Laundry (Windsor) Ld v Newman Industries LdCourt of AppealYes[1949] 2 KB 528United KingdomCited for the restatement of the rule in Hadley v Baxendale.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co LtdPrivy CouncilYes[1961] 1 AC 388United KingdomCited for the test of remoteness in tort.
Ho Soo Fong v Standard Chartered BankCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR 181SingaporeCited for the test of remoteness in tort.
Supershield Limited v Siemens Building Technologies Fe LimitedCourt of AppealYes[2010] EWCA Civ 7United KingdomDiscussed the effect of The Achilleas on the law of remoteness in contract.
Great Western Railway Company v FisherHigh CourtYes[1905] 1 Ch 316United KingdomCited by the defendants in respect of the legal costs of contesting the eviction.
Butterworth v Kingsway MotorsHigh CourtYes[1954] 1 WLR 1286United KingdomCited by the defendants in respect of the legal costs of contesting the eviction.
British Racing Drivers Club Ltd v Hextall Erskine & CoHigh CourtYes[1996] 3 All ER 667United KingdomCited by the defendants in respect of the legal costs of contesting the eviction.

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

  • Lease
  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligent Misrepresentation
  • Damages Assessment
  • Mitigation of Damages
  • Remoteness of Damage
  • Vacant Possession
  • Writ of Possession
  • Relocation Expenses

15.2 Keywords

  • lease
  • breach of contract
  • misrepresentation
  • damages
  • relocation
  • commercial property

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Breach of Contract75
Misrepresentation70
Landlord and Tenant Law65
Damages60
Contract Law55
Property Law40
Estoppel30

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Tort Law
  • Real Property Law