Chiu Teng v SLA: Judicial Review of Differential Premium Assessment for Lifting Title Restrictions

Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte Ltd sought judicial review against the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) regarding the assessment of differential premium (DP) for lifting title restrictions on two plots of land. The applicant alleged the assessment was done without reference to the Urban Redevelopment Authority's (URA) Development Charge Table of Rates. Tay Yong Kwang J of the High Court of Singapore dismissed the application, finding the SLA's assessment reasonable and that no legitimate expectation had been established.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed Chiu Teng's application for judicial review, finding SLA's differential premium assessment reasonable and no legitimate expectation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Singapore Land AuthorityRespondentGovernment AgencySuccessful in Defending ApplicationWon
Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte LtdApplicantCorporationApplication DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tay Yong KwangJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Peh Aik HinAllen & Gledhill LLP
Kristy TanAllen & Gledhill LLP
Edwin TongAllen & Gledhill LLP
Lim Wei LeeWongPartnership LLP
Lionel LeoWongPartnership LLP
Alvin YeoWongPartnership LLP
Edmund KohWongPartnership LLP

4. Facts

  1. The applicant is the lessee of two adjoining plots of land, Lot 1338M and Lot 2818V.
  2. The applicant acquired the lots through competitive tenders for redevelopment.
  3. The lease documents contained a Differential Premium Clause and a Land Return Clause.
  4. The SLA published circulars and maintained a website providing information on differential premium computation.
  5. The SLA assessed the differential premium based on 100% enhancement in land value as assessed by the Chief Valuer.
  6. The applicant argued that the assessment should have been based on the Development Charge Table of Rates.
  7. The SLA contended that the land was directly alienated and subject to a different policy.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority, Originating Summons No 457 of 2013, [2013] SGHC 262

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Applicant acquired Lot 1338M through competitive tender.
Applicant acquired Lot 2818V through competitive tender.
Applicant filed application with URA for planning permission.
Provisional permission granted by URA.
Planning permission granted by URA.
Applicant submitted application to SLA for lifting of title restrictions.
Applicant's solicitors sought SLA's consent to sell units and align lease tenures.
Applicant obtained construction permit.
SLA informed applicant of differential premium assessment method.
URA granted permission for sub-division of Lot 2818V.
SLA offered surrender and re-issue of title to align tenures.
Applicant accepted SLA's offer.
SLA informed applicant that surrender and re-issue were approved.
SLA sent re-issued lease for execution.
Applicant executed re-issued lease.
SLA informed applicant of the differential premium amount payable.
Applicant sought clarification on differential premium calculation.
SLA stated differential premiums were assessed by the Chief Valuer.
Applicant's solicitors requested clarification on the basis of calculation of the differential premium.
SLA stated that the Development Charge table was not adopted in determining the differential premium.
Applicant's solicitors requested clarification as to why the table of development charge rates was not adopted.
SLA explained that the case was different from conventional leasehold sites.
Applicant's solicitors sought particulars of the policy pertaining to the differential premium chargeable for directly alienated land.
Applicant appealed against the assessed differential premium.
SLA met with the applicant to explain the mechanism behind the computation of the differential premium.
Further meeting held with representatives of the applicant, SLA and the Chief Valuer’s Office.
Originating summons filed.
Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Differential Premium Assessment
    • Outcome: The court found the SLA's assessment of the differential premium to be reasonable.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Deviation from Development Charge Table
      • Application of Policy for Directly Alienated Land
  2. Legitimate Expectation
    • Outcome: The court held that the applicant did not have a legitimate expectation that the differential premium would be assessed according to the Development Charge Table.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reliance on Public Statements
      • Reasonableness of Expectation
  3. Judicial Review
    • Outcome: The court held that the application for judicial review was not time-barred and that the applicant had exhausted all possible alternative remedies.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Timeliness of Application
      • Exhaustion of Alternative Remedies

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Quashing Order
  2. Mandatory Order

9. Cause of Actions

  • Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-GeneralHigh CourtYes[2013] 1 SLR 619SingaporeCited for the conditions required for leave to be granted for judicial review.
Jeyaretnam Kenneth Andrew v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2013] SGCA 56SingaporeCited for the conditions required for leave to be granted for judicial review.
UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town CorpHigh CourtYes[2011] 3 SLR 94SingaporeCited for the court's ability to grant an extension of time for judicial review applications and for the court's doubt that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is part of Singapore law.
Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land RevenueHigh CourtYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 568SingaporeCited for the court's ability to grant an extension of time for judicial review applications.
Borissik Svetlana v Urban Redevelopment AuthorityHigh CourtYes[2009] 4 SLR(R) 92SingaporeCited for the general rule that a person seeking judicial review must exhaust all alternative remedies and for the conditions for the creation of a legitimate expectation.
Regina v Hillingdon London Borough Council, Ex parte Royco Homes LtdQueen's BenchYes[1974] QB 720England and WalesCited for the principle that the crux of the inquiry is whether the alternative remedy is equally effective and convenient.
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte SwatiCourt of AppealYes[1986] 1 WLR 477England and WalesCited for the principle that the general rule to exhaust all alternative remedies does not apply where the applicant can distinguish his case from the type of case for which the appeal procedure was provided.
Pacific Recreation Pte Ltd v S Y Technology IncCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 491SingaporeCited for the principle that an expert may not usurp the function of the court and present his finding.
The H156High CourtYes[1999] 2 SLR(R) 419SingaporeCited for the principle that an expert may not usurp the function of the court and present his finding.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury CorporationCourt of AppealYes[1948] 1 KB 223England and WalesCited for the definition of unreasonableness in the context of statutory discretions.
Council of Civil Service Unions and others v Minister of the Civil ServiceHouse of LordsYes[1985] 1 AC 374United KingdomCited for the definition of irrationality as Wednesbury unreasonableness and for the doctrine of legitimate expectations.
Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[1988] 2 SLR(R) 525SingaporeCited for the adoption of Lord Diplock's comments on Wednesbury unreasonableness in Singapore law.
Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2013] SGCA 45SingaporeCited for the high bar set by the Wednesbury test.
Chee Siok Chin and others v Minister for Home Affairs and anotherHigh CourtYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582SingaporeCited for the high level at which the standard of unreasonableness is fixed.
Schmidt and another v Secretary of State for Home AffairsCourt of AppealYes[1969] 2 Ch 149England and WalesCited for the first use of the term legitimate expectation.
Lever (Finance) Ltd v Westminster CorporationCourt of AppealYes[1970] 3 All ER 496England and WalesCited for granting relief on the ground of estoppel.
In re PrestonHouse of LordsYes[1985] 1 AC 835United KingdomCited for the principle that substantive relief could be granted on the basis of abuse of power where the conduct complained about is equivalent to a breach of contract or a breach of representation.
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Ruddock and othersHigh CourtYes[1987] 1 WLR 1482England and WalesCited for stating that the doctrine of legitimate expectation could not be restricted to cases involving the right to be heard.
Regina (Reprotech (Pebsham) Ltd) v East Sussex County CouncilHouse of LordsYes[2003] 1 WLR 348United KingdomCited for the principle that it is unhelpful to introduce private law concepts of estoppel into planning law.
South Bucks District Council v Flanagan and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2002] 1 WLR 2601England and WalesCited for construing the House of Lords decision as deciding that there is no longer a place for the private law doctrine of estoppel in public law.
The Queen on the application of, Bhatt Murphy (a firm) and others v The Independent AssessorCourt of AppealYes[2008] EWCA Civ 755England and WalesCited for commenting on the underlying basis of the doctrine of legitimate expectation.
Regina (Patel) v General Medical CouncilCourt of AppealYes[2013] 1 WLR 2801England and WalesCited as the latest pronouncement on the law of substantive legitimate expectation in England.
Annetts and another v McCann and othersFederal Court of AustraliaYes(1990) 97 ALR 177AustraliaCited for the principle that Australia has hitherto not recognised the doctrine of estoppel in the context of public law.
Re Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs; Ex parte LamHigh CourtYes(2003) 72 ALD 613AustraliaCited for casting doubt on the Teoh case and for the principle that Australia has hitherto not recognised the doctrine of estoppel in the context of public law.
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v TeohHigh Court of AustraliaYes(1995) 183 CLR 353AustraliaCited for holding that a legitimate expectation arose from the ratification of an international treaty that had not been implemented by statute.
Rush v Commissioner of PoliceFederal Court of AustraliaYes(2006) 150 FCR 165AustraliaCited for confirming that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is not recognised in Australian law.
Habib v Commonwealth (No 2)High Court of AustraliaYes(2009) 254 ALR 250AustraliaCited for confirming that the doctrine of substantive legitimate expectation is not recognised in Australian law.
Centre hospitalier Mont-Sinaï c Québec (Ministre de la Santé & des Services sociaux)Supreme CourtYes[2001] 2 SCR 281CanadaCited for holding that legitimate expectation cannot be used to ground substantive relief and that the doctrine of estoppel should be used instead.
Agraira v Canada (Minster of Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness)Supreme CourtYesCarswellNat 1983CanadaCited for reaffirming the principle that the doctrine of legitimate expectation cannot give rise to substantive rights in Canada.
Ng Siu Tung & others v Director of ImmigrationCourt of Final AppealYes[2002] 1 HKLRD 561Hong KongCited for emphatically holding that the doctrine of legitimate expectation can be a ground for substantive relief in Hong Kong.
Yong Vui Kong v Attorney-GeneralCourt of AppealYes[2011] 2 SLR 1189SingaporeCited for addressing the argument that a legitimate expectation had arisen that it is the President who would make the decision as to whether the appellant would be pardoned.
Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte Fire Brigades Union and othersHouse of LordsYes[1995] 2 AC 513United KingdomCited for the British conception of the separation of powers.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322 R 5 2006 Rev Ed) O 53 r 1(6)Singapore
Singapore Land Authority Act (Cap 301, 2002 Rev Ed)Singapore
Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Differential Premium
  • Development Charge Table
  • Land Return Clause
  • Judicial Review
  • Legitimate Expectation
  • State Land
  • Directly Alienated Land
  • Spot Valuation
  • Title Restrictions
  • Provisional Planning Permission

15.2 Keywords

  • Differential Premium
  • Judicial Review
  • Land Law
  • Singapore Land Authority
  • Legitimate Expectation

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Differential Premium Assessment90
Judicial Review85
Administrative Law75
Legitimate Expectation70
Property Law65
Land Acquisition50
Contracts30

16. Subjects

  • Land Law
  • Administrative Law
  • Judicial Review