Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence: Proprietary Estoppel & Housing Development Act

In Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence, the High Court of Singapore addressed the Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiff's statement of claim. The dispute arose from a Housing and Development Board flat left by the parties' grandmother. The court considered whether a prior consent order and section 51(10) of the Housing and Development Act precluded the Plaintiff's proprietary estoppel claim. The court dismissed the Defendant's application and ordered the Plaintiff to amend his statement of claim.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

The Defendant's application to strike out the Plaintiff's statement of claim was dismissed. The Plaintiff was ordered to amend his statement of claim to properly reflect his proprietary estoppel claim.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addressed whether a prior consent order and section 51(10) of the Housing and Development Act preclude a proprietary estoppel claim.

1.7 Decision Date

4 August 2011

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Low Heng Leon Andy	Plaintiff	Individual	Amendment of Statement of Claim Ordered	Partial	Gopinath S/O Pillai
Low Kian Beng Lawrence (administrator of the estate of Tan Ah Kng, deceased)	Defendant	Individual	Application to Strike Out Dismissed	Lost	Tan Tian Luh

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Wei Sern Paul	Assistant Registrar	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Gopinath S/O Pillai	Eldan Law LLP
Tan Tian Luh	Chancery law Corporation

4. Facts

The Plaintiff and the Defendant are cousins.
The dispute arose following the demise of their common grandmother, Tan Ah Kng.
The dispute revolved around a flat situated at Block 306, Hougang Avenue 5, #02-355 Singapore 530306.
The Flat was purchased around 1983.
The Plaintiff and his immediate family had use of the Flat as their family home for many years.
The Plaintiff averred that almost immediately after his brother had left the Flat, the Plaintiff had to look after both the Deceased and the Aunt as they were in poor physical health.
On 28 April 2009, the Defendant was granted letters of administration in respect of the Deceased’s estate.

5. Formal Citations

Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence (administrator of the estate of Tan Ah Kng, deceased), Suit No 252 of 2011 (Summons No 8074 of 2010), [2011] SGHC 184

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1983-01-01	Flat purchased around this time.
1984-01-01	Plaintiff born.
2003-01-01	Most of the Plaintiff’s family moved out of the Flat, save for one of the Plaintiff’s brother and the Plaintiff himself.
2005-01-01	The Deceased and the Aunt also made the Flat their residence.
2006-01-01	The Plaintiff’s brother moved out.
2007-01-01	The Aunt passed away.
2008-01-01	The Deceased passed away.
2009-04-28	The Defendant was granted letters of administration in respect of the Deceased’s estate.
2009-07-13	Defendant offered to settle Originating Summons No. 213 of 2009.
2009-07-17	Plaintiff responded to Defendant's settlement offer.
2009-07-21	Defendant's counsel set out the Defendant’s view that the Plaintiff had made a counteroffer.
2009-07-22	Plaintiff's counsel wrote to the Defendant’s counsel regarding the fax of 21 July 2009.
2009-07-24	Consent order entered into before Deputy Registrar Julian Chin.
2009-07-31	Plaintiff to deliver vacant possession of the Flat to the Defendant.
2011-01-01	Plaintiff commenced the present suit to recover S$18,350.50 or, alternatively, damages to be assessed.
2011-08-05	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Proprietary Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff's claim was not obviously unsustainable or wrong.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reliance on promises
  - Detriment suffered
  - Unconscionability
Consent Orders
- Outcome: The court held that the consent order entered into between the parties was a contractual consent order rather than a ‘no objections’ consent order.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Contractual consent order
  - No objections consent order
  - Issue estoppel
Housing and Development Act
- Outcome: The court held that section 51(10) of the HDA did not make the Plaintiff’s claim obviously unsustainable.
- Category: Statutory
- Sub-Issues:
  - Section 51(10)
  - Resulting trust
  - Constructive trust

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages
Damages to be assessed

9. Cause of Actions

Proprietary Estoppel

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Real Estate Law

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and oths	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1997] SLR(R) 649	Singapore	Cited for the standard to be satisfied before pleadings can be struck out.
Ridhuan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 188	Singapore	Cited for the definition of the words “frivolous or vexatious” under Order 18 rule 19(1)(b) of the Rules of Court.
Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Pneupac Ltd	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1982] 1 W.L.R. 185	England and Wales	Cited for the distinction between contractual consent orders and ‘no objections’ consent orders.
Tigner-Roche & Co Ltd v Spiro	N/A	Yes	Tigner-Roche & Co Ltd v Spiro(1982) 126 SJ 525	N/A	Cited to explain that a ‘no objections’ consent order is merely a case where the Plaintiffs merely bowed their heads and submitted to such an order.
Wiltopps (Asia) Ltd v Drew & Napier and another	High Court	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR(R) 252	Singapore	Cited for applying the analysis in Siebe Gorman to the case before him and held that the consent order entered into was of the contractual kind.
Wellmix Organics (International) Pte Ltd v Lau Yu Man	N/A	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 117	Singapore	Cited for setting out the methodology to be employed in ascertaining whether there was a contractual consent order.
Woo Koon Chee v Scandinavian Boiler Service (Asia) Pte Ltd and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 4 SLR 1213	Singapore	Cited for the appropriate manner in which a contractual consent order should be enforced.
Indian Overseas Bank v Motorcycle Industries (1973) Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 3 SLR(R) 841	Singapore	Cited for the effects of a settlement or compromise pending proceedings.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others	N/A	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited by the Defendant's counsel to argue that issue estoppel applied.
Sim Lian (Newton) Pte Ltd v Gan Beng Cheng Raynes and Another	High Court	Yes	[2007] SGHC 84	Singapore	Cited by the Defendant's counsel to argue that the Plaintiff should have claimed trial instead of consenting to the order made in the Order 81 Application.
Koh Cheong Heng v Ho Yee Fong	N/A	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 125	Singapore	Decision of Judith Prakash J which seemed to accept a very limited form of remedial constructive trust in Singapore.
Stack v Dowden	N/A	Yes	[2007] 2 AC 432	N/A	Lord Walker expressed doubt that the two areas of law “can or should be completely assimilated” and held that proprietary estoppel typically consists of asserting an equitable claim against the conscience of the ‘true’ owner.
Oxley v Hiscock	N/A	Yes	[2005] Fam 211	N/A	Cited in relation to the recent liberalisation of the common intention constructive trust doctrine.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Order 18, rule 19(1)(a), (b) and (d) of the Rules of Court

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Intestate Succession Act (Cap 146, 1985 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Proprietary estoppel
Consent order
Housing and Development Act
Constructive trust
Resulting trust
Estoppel equity
Unconscionability

15.2 Keywords

Proprietary estoppel
Housing and Development Act
Consent order
Constructive trust
HDB flat

16. Subjects

Equity
Real Property
Civil Procedure

17. Areas of Law

Proprietary Estoppel
Trust Law
Housing Law
Civil Procedure