Goh Liang Yong Jonah v Heng Kuek Hoy: Forfeiture of Deposits and Rental Payments in Property Sale Dispute
In Goh Liang Yong Jonah and Goh Mei Ching Sandra v Heng Kuek Hoy and another, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute arising from a failed property sale. The plaintiffs, Goh Liang Yong Jonah and Goh Mei Ching Sandra, sought payment of rent and the right to retain deposits for a property sale after the defendant, Heng Kuek Hoy, failed to complete the purchase. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs, allowing the forfeiture of deposits and ordering the defendant to pay outstanding rent. The second defendant was a nominal party and not involved in the substantive proceedings.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiffs
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court addressed a dispute over a property sale, ruling on the forfeiture of deposits and the payment of rent following the buyer's failure to complete the purchase.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goh Liang Yong Jonah | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff, Forfeiture of Deposit Allowed | Won, Won | A Thamilselvan |
| Goh Mei Ching Sandra | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff, Forfeiture of Deposit Allowed | Won, Won | A Thamilselvan |
| Heng Kuek Hoy | Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed, Forfeiture of Deposit Allowed | Lost, Lost | Kanthosamy Rajendran |
| Heng Kuek Hoy | Defendant | Individual | Withdrawal of Caveat | Neutral | Koh Mei Ping Lynette, Cheong Wei Yan Ginny |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | J | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| A Thamilselvan | Subra TT Law LLC |
| Kanthosamy Rajendran | Relianze Law Corporation |
| Koh Mei Ping Lynette | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Cheong Wei Yan Ginny | Rajah & Tann LLP |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs granted Defendant an Option to Purchase the property for $1,850,000 on 2011-11-16.
- Defendant exercised the Option on 2011-11-29, paying a deposit of $92,500.
- Completion was initially set for 2012-01-17, then deferred to 2012-03-23.
- Defendant signed a Letter of Indemnity on 2012-01-18, setting conditions for occupying the property.
- Defendant requested multiple postponements of the completion date, agreeing to pay additional deposits.
- Defendant failed to complete the sale by the final agreed date, 2012-07-06.
- Plaintiffs rescinded the Option on 2012-08-03 and sought to forfeit all deposits paid.
5. Formal Citations
- Goh Liang Yong Jonah and another v Heng Kuek Hoy and another, Originating Summons No 58 of 2013, [2013] SGHC 203
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Heng Kwok Siong viewed the Property on behalf of Heng Kuek Hoy. | |
| Option to Purchase granted to Heng Kuek Hoy; option fee of $18,500 paid. | |
| Heng Kuek Hoy exercised the Option with a payment of $74,000. | |
| Parties agreed to defer completion to 2012-03-23. | |
| Heng Kuek Hoy signed a Letter of Indemnity. | |
| Heng Kuek Hoy's solicitors requested postponement of completion to 2012-05-30. | |
| Completion rescheduled to 2012-06-25, conditional on $120,000 payment. | |
| Heng's cheque for $120,000 was dishonored. | |
| Heng issued another cheque for $100,000. | |
| Heng Kuek Hoy's solicitors requested further rescheduling to 2012-06-29. | |
| Completion extended to 2012-06-29, subject to charges payment. | |
| Heng Kuek Hoy requested postponement to 2012-07-06. | |
| Completion agreed for 2012-07-06, with $110,000 further deposit. | |
| Heng Kuek Hoy paid $110,000. | |
| Heng Kuek Hoy requested postponement to 2012-07-10. | |
| Plaintiffs rejected postponement request. | |
| Plaintiffs gave Heng Kuek Hoy notice to complete within 21 days. | |
| 21-day period for completion expired. | |
| Plaintiffs rescinded the Option and forfeited monies and deposits. | |
| Plaintiffs repeated demands for vacant possession. | |
| Completion purportedly deferred to 2012-09-24. | |
| Heng Kuek Hoy's solicitors requested return of $149,864.48. | |
| Plaintiffs informed Heng Kuek Hoy vacated the Property. | |
| Plaintiffs repeated demands made on 2012-08-03. | |
| Plaintiffs repeated demands made on 2012-08-03. | |
| Heng Kuek Hoy requested postponement of completion to 2013-01-08. | |
| Heng Kuek Hoy requested postponement of completion to 2013-01-08. | |
| Plaintiffs filed OS 58/2013. | |
| Hearing before Belinda Ang Saw Ean J. | |
| Heng Kuek Hoy handed over the keys to the Property. | |
| Adjourned hearing of OS 58/2013. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Forfeiture of Deposits
- Outcome: The court held that the additional deposits were reasonable and forfeitable under condition 29.8(c)(i) of the Conditions of Sale and common law principles.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonableness of deposit amount
- Characterization of payments as deposits versus advance payments
- Unconscionability of forfeiture
- Related Cases:
- [1998] 3 SLR(R) 1028
- [2007] 3 SLR(R) 537
- (1884) 27 Ch. D 89
- [2000] 3 SLR(R) 594
- Claim for Unpaid Rental
- Outcome: The court ruled that the claim for rent was valid under the separate contractual arrangement of the Letter of Indemnity, unaffected by the repudiation of the Option.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Enforceability of Letter of Indemnity
- Election of remedies
- Damages for repudiation of contract
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 3 SLR(R) 148
- Equitable Relief Against Forfeiture
- Outcome: The court found that equitable relief against forfeiture was not applicable because the Option was rescinded and there was no live contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unconscionability
- Injustice
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 2 SLR(R) 643
8. Remedies Sought
- Payment of Rent
- Forfeiture of Deposits
- Vacant Possession of Property
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Claim for Rent
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pacific Rim Investments Pte Ltd v Lam Seng Tiong and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 643 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an equitable jurisdiction exists to grant relief against forfeiture in exceptional circumstances involving unconscionability and injustice. |
| Harris Hakim v Allgreen Properties Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 3 SLR(R) 148 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of 'without prejudice to any other rights or remedies available to [the Vendor] at law or in equity' in the Conditions of Sale, requiring the vendor to elect remedies. |
| Lim Lay Bee and another v Allgreen Properties Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 1028 | Singapore | Cited to distinguish between deposits and advance payments, noting that advance payments are not designed to secure performance and are not forfeitable. |
| Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 537 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the nature and purpose of additional deposits must be gathered from the intention of the parties expressed in the agreement, objectively ascertained. |
| Howe v Smith | N/A | Yes | (1884) 27 Ch. D 89 | N/A | Cited for defining a deposit as a security for the completion of the purchase and an earnest to bind the bargain, creating a motive to perform the contract. |
| Triangle Auto Pte Ltd v Zheng Zi Construction Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 594 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a deposit must be a reasonable sum to be considered as earnest money and that a seller is entitled to retain it even if no loss is suffered, provided the amount is customary or moderate. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Option to Purchase
- Letter of Indemnity
- Deposit
- Additional Deposits
- Completion Date
- Notice to Complete
- Forfeiture
- Rescission
15.2 Keywords
- property
- sale
- deposit
- forfeiture
- rent
- contract
- completion
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Property Sale
- Forfeiture of Deposits
- Rental Agreement
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Property Law
- Singapore Law Society's Conditions of Sale
- Real Estate Law