UDL Marine v Jurong Town Corp: Proprietary Estoppel & Lease Renewal Dispute
UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd sued Jurong Town Corporation in the High Court of Singapore, with Zhuo Wenzhao AR presiding, concerning the refusal to renew a lease. UDL Marine claimed proprietary estoppel and sought a declaration that the refusal to renew the lease was wrongful. The court rejected Jurong Town Corporation's application to strike out UDL Marine's Statement of Claim and allowed UDL Marine's application to amend the same.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Defendant’s application to strike out the Plaintiff’s Statement of Claim is rejected, and the Plaintiff’s application to amend the same is allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
UDL Marine sues Jurong Town Corp over lease renewal refusal, claiming proprietary estoppel. The court allowed UDL Marine to amend its claim.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Application to amend Statement of Claim Allowed | Partial | Ang Wee Tiong, Olivia Low |
| Jurong Town Corp | Defendant | Statutory Board | Application to strike out Statement of Claim Dismissed | Lost | Dinesh Dhillon, Felicia Tan |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Zhuo Wenzhao | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Ang Wee Tiong | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Olivia Low | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Dinesh Dhillon | Allen and Gledhill LLP |
| Felicia Tan | Allen and Gledhill LLP |
4. Facts
- UDL Marine had a lease over premises owned by Jurong Town Corporation that was due to expire on 31 December 2010.
- In 2004, UDL Marine sought to dispose of its remaining interest in the Lease.
- The Economic Development Board of Singapore contacted UDL Marine in early 2005 to persuade UDL Marine to reconsider its decision.
- EDB made representations that JTC would consider granting extensions of 20 years leases and would grant a renewal of UDL Marine’s Lease if UDL Marine had a good business plan supported by EDB.
- UDL Marine submitted a business plan to JTC and made formal applications for the renewal of the Lease in 2008 and 2009.
- In November 2009, JTC informed UDL Marine that JTC would not renew the Lease.
- In January 2010, UDL Marine received confirmation from EDB that UDL Marine’s business plan was good and compatible with the needs of the marine industry.
- On 19 May 2010, JTC wrote to UDL Marine stating that JTC and the EDB had “jointly evaluated” UDL Marine’s business plan and was unable to support UDL Marine’s application for a new lease for the Premises.
5. Formal Citations
- UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corp, , [2011] SGHC 2
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Decision Date | |
| Hearing of applications | |
| Plaintiff commenced suit against the Defendant | |
| Defendant wrote to the Plaintiff stating that the Defendant and the EDB had “jointly evaluated” the Plaintiff’s business plan and was unable to support the Plaintiff’s application for a new lease for the Premises | |
| Plaintiff received confirmation from EDB that the Plaintiff’s business plan was good and compatible with the needs of the marine industry | |
| Defendant informed the Plaintiff that the Defendant would not renew the Lease | |
| Plaintiff made formal applications for the renewal of the Lease | |
| Plaintiff made formal applications for the renewal of the Lease | |
| Telephone conversation between Leung and the Defendant’s Mr Ernest Tay | |
| The Economic Development Board of Singapore (“EDB”) contacted the Plaintiff in early 2005 to persuade the Plaintiff to reconsider this decision | |
| Plaintiff sought to dispose of its remaining interest in the Lease and seek an alternative location for its business | |
| Lease was due to expire | |
| Leave Application was heard and dismissed by Justice Lai Siu Chu |
7. Legal Issues
- Proprietary Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that the Plaintiff’s SOC reveals a reasonable cause of action.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 1 SLR(R) 292
- Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court held that the Plaintiff’s proposed addition of the judicial review claim in its SOC does not constitute an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
- Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court held that the previous proceedings in the plaintiff’s Leave Application do not have a res judicata effect on the current proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiff’s proposed addition of the judicial review claim in its SOC does not constitute an abuse of process.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the Defendant’s refusal to renew the Lease was wrongful
- Declaration that the Defendant is estopped from refusing the renewal of the Lease or refusing the grant of a new lease for the Premises
- Order that the Defendant renew the Lease or grant a new lease for the Premises or, in the alternative, grant the Plaintiff equitable compensation in satisfaction of the Defendant’s refusal to renew the lease or grant a new lease for the Premises
9. Cause of Actions
- Proprietary Estoppel
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Marine Industry
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 292 | Singapore | Cited for the main elements required to sustain a claim based on proprietary estoppel. |
| Buttes Gas and Oil Co v Hammer (No 3) | House of Lords | Yes | [1982] AC 888 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding whether leave applications have res judicata effect. |
| Bachoo Mohan Singh v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 966 | Singapore | Cited regarding whether leave applications have res judicata effect. |
| Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453 | Singapore | Cited regarding identity of subject matter between the plaintiff’s Leave Application and the present proceedings for the doctrine to apply. |
| Hoystead v Commissioner of Taxation | N/A | Yes | [1926] AC 155 | N/A | Cited regarding whether a determination of the merits of the Plaintiff’s current action was fundamental to the earlier decision dismissing the Plaintiff’s Leave Application. |
| Serrao v Noel | Court of Appeal | Yes | (1885) 15 QBD 549 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding a plaintiff who wishes to seek different remedies for a single cause of action must do so in the same proceedings. |
| O’Reilly v Mackman | House of Lords | Yes | [1983] 2 A.C. 237 | United Kingdom | Cited regarding the proper avenue of redress for a plaintiff complaining of a public authority's infringement of his public law rights is through the O53 process, and not the normal OS process. |
| Yip Kok Seng v Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners Board | High Court | Yes | [2010] SGHC 226 | Singapore | Cited regarding the prerogative remedies for a judicial review action have to be sought under the procedure prescribed in O53, while the remedy of declaration can only be obtained under the normal originating summons process. |
| Re Application by Dow Jones (Asia) Inc. | N/A | Yes | [1987] SLR 505 | Singapore | Cited regarding a court cannot grant prerogative remedies in an ordinary originating summons, and neither can it give a declaration in the O53 summons. |
| Poh Kiong Kok v Management Corp strata title 581 | N/A | Yes | [1990] SLR 634 | Singapore | Cited regarding a court cannot grant prerogative remedies in an ordinary originating summons, and neither can it give a declaration in the O53 summons. |
| Gregory v Camden L.B.C. | N/A | Yes | [1966] 1 WLR 899 | N/A | Cited regarding the substantive requirements for the grant of prerogative remedies differ from those relating to the grant of a declaration. |
| Punton v Ministry of Pensions and National Insurance (No.2) | N/A | Yes | [1964] 1 WLR 226 | N/A | Cited regarding the substantive requirements for the grant of prerogative remedies differ from those relating to the grant of a declaration. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O18 r 19 of the Rules of Court |
| O53 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Proprietary Estoppel
- Lease Renewal
- Statement of Claim
- Economic Development Board
- Business Plan
- Judicial Review
- Res Judicata
- Abuse of Process
15.2 Keywords
- lease
- renewal
- proprietary estoppel
- Singapore
- UDL Marine
- Jurong Town Corp
- JTC
- EDB
16. Subjects
- Land Law
- Leases
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Administrative Law
17. Areas of Law
- Proprietary Estoppel
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure
- Land Law
- Contract Law