Sandra Chew v Woo Kah Wai: Breach of Contract for Property Option

In a case before the High Court of Singapore on 28 June 2013, Justice Lionel Yee ruled in favor of Sandra Chew Ai Hua against Woo Kah Wai and another, concerning a breach of contract related to a property option. Chew claimed that Woo Kah Wai and his wife failed to provide an option open for acceptance for a period of three working days. The court found that the Defendants breached their contractual obligations to the Plaintiff to deliver an option to purchase which complied with the initial offer. The court ordered damages to be assessed and the option money to be repaid.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff; damages to be assessed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

High Court case involving Sandra Chew and Woo Kah Wai concerning a breach of contract related to a property option. The court found in favor of the plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
AnotherDefendantOtherDamages to be paidLost
Woo Kah WaiDefendantIndividualDamages to be paidLost
Chew Ai Hua SandraPlaintiffIndividualJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Chesney Real Estate Pte LtdOtherCorporationNot liableNeutral

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lionel YeeJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Edmund Jerome KronenburgBraddell Brothers LLP
Zhuang Baoling AliciaBraddell Brothers LLP
Christopher Anand DanielMatthew Chiong Partnership
Lim Cheng Hock LawrenceMatthew Chiong Partnership
Denis TanToh Tan LLP

4. Facts

  1. Defendants engaged Third Party to sell property in January 2010.
  2. Plaintiff offered $920,000 for the property on February 9, 2010.
  3. Plaintiff signed an Offer to Purchase on February 10, 2010, with a 3-day option period.
  4. First Defendant signed the Option to Purchase on February 11, 2010.
  5. Adrian collected the signed Option on February 12, 2010, noting it expired on February 13, 2010.
  6. Plaintiff attempted to exercise the Option on February 17 and 18, 2010, but it was rejected.
  7. The property was sold to a third party in mid-2010 for approximately $1,050,000.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chew Ai Hua, Sandra v Woo Kah Wai and another (Chesney Real Estate Pte Ltd, third party), Suit No 448 of 2011/Q, [2013] SGHC 120

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Plaintiff informed Property was on sale
Plaintiff signed Offer to Purchase
Plaintiff submitted Offer to Purchase to Third Party
First Defendant signed Option to Purchase
Adrian collected signed Option to Purchase
Deadline for Option to Purchase expired
Chinese New Year
Public Holiday
Plaintiff's solicitors attempted to exercise Option to Purchase
Defendants' solicitors rejected exercise of Option to Purchase
Intended date of completion
Plaintiff paid rental for property at 985 Bukit Timah Road
Property was sold
Writ of summons filed
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the Defendants breached their contractual obligations to the Plaintiff to deliver an option to purchase which complied with the initial offer.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to deliver option to purchase
      • Incorrect option period
  2. Damages Assessment
    • Outcome: The court ordered an assessment of damages to be undertaken, narrowly circumscribing it to ascertaining the market price of the Property as at the completion date.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Date of assessment
      • Consequential losses

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Specific Performance
  2. Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Joseph Mathew and another v Singh Chiranjeev and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2010] 1 SLR 338SingaporeCited for the principle that a contract to grant an option for the sale of an apartment is binding when the option money is deposited into the vendor's bank account.
Midlink Development Pte Ltd v The Stansfield Group Pte LtdHigh CourtNo[2004] 4 SLR(R) 258SingaporeCited for the principle that section 6(d) of the Civil Law Act must be expressly pleaded to be deployed in legal proceedings.
Tai Joon Lan v Yun Ai Chin and anotherCourt of AppealNo[1993] 2 SLR(R) 596SingaporeCited for the principle that a vendor cannot take advantage of their own breach to obstruct the valid exercise of an option.
Goh Lye Chin Raymond v Poon Soon Chin and anotherHigh CourtNo[2010] 4 SLR 1025SingaporeCited for the principle that a vendor's conduct evincing an intention to resile from an agreement to hold out for a higher price merits treating the attempted exercise of the option as valid.
Tay Joo Sing v Ku Yu SangCourt of AppealNo[1994] 1 SLR(R) 765SingaporeCited for the principle that a lengthy delay in seeking legal redress for a property dispute can amount to acquiescence in the abandonment of the contract, making specific performance inappropriate.
Lie Kie Siang v Han Ngum Juan MarcusHigh CourtNo[1991] 2 SLR(R) 511SingaporeCited for the general measure of damages for the breach of a contract for the sale of land is the difference between the market value of the property at the date of completion and the contract price.
Johnson v AgnewHouse of LordsYes[1980] AC 367United KingdomCited for the principle that the court has the power to fix such other date as may be appropriate in the circumstances for calculating damages.
Min Hong Auto Supply Pte Ltd v Loh Chun Seng and anotherHigh CourtNo[1993] 1 SLR(R) 642SingaporeCited for the principle that a departure from the general rule of assessing damages at the date of completion is only appropriate where the innocent party acted with reasonable dispatch and maintained a consistent stand in attempting to continue the contract by promptly applying to court for specific performance.
Ho Kian Siang and another v Ong Cheng Hoo and othersHigh CourtNo[2000] 2 SLR(R) 480SingaporeCited for the principle that a departure from the general rule of assessing damages at the date of completion is only appropriate where the innocent party acted with reasonable dispatch and maintained a consistent stand in attempting to continue the contract by promptly applying to court for specific performance.
Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others and another appealCourt of AppealNo[2007] 3 SLR(R) 537SingaporeCited for guidance on whether an order for damages to be separately assessed can and should be granted despite the failure by the Plaintiff to apply for bifurcation.
Suleman v Shahsavari and othersCourt of AppealNo[1988] 1 WLR 1181England and WalesCited for the principle that the usual measure of damages also includes interest from the date of completion until judgment.
Nirumalan V Kanapathi Pillay v Teo Eng ChuanHigh CourtNo[2003] 3 SLR(R) 601SingaporeCited for the principle that the basis of an award of interest is the defendant having kept the plaintiff out of his money and having had the use of it himself.
Spiro v Glencrown Properties Ltd and anotherChancery DivisionNo[1991] 1 Ch 537England and WalesCited for the principle that an option is, from a purchaser’s perspective, an irrevocable offer.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Option to Purchase
  • Offer to Purchase
  • Option Period
  • Completion Period
  • Option Money
  • Breach of Contract
  • Specific Performance
  • Damages
  • Real Estate Transaction

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of contract
  • option to purchase
  • real estate
  • property law
  • specific performance
  • damages

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Option to Purchase90
Breach of Contract90
Contract Law85
Real Estate75
Damages70
Property Law60
Waiver40

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Property Law
  • Real Estate
  • Breach of Contract
  • Options