Chan Kin Foo v City Developments Ltd: Collective Sale, Constitutional Rights & Property Ownership

In Chan Kin Foo v City Developments Ltd, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal against the Assistant Registrar’s decision to strike out parts of Chan Kin Foo's statement of claim. Chan, the owner of a unit in Lock Cho Apartments, sued City Developments Ltd, the purchaser, alleging that the collective sale of the property violated his constitutional rights. The court dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action and was an abuse of process. The court also considered the issue of whether the claim was brought against the proper party.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Chan Kin Foo sued City Developments Ltd over a collective sale, alleging violation of constitutional rights. The court dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable cause of action.

1.7 Decision Date

13 March 2013

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Chan Kin Foo	Appellant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Joseph Chen of Joseph Chen & Co
City Developments Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Tham Wei Chern of Allen & Gledhill LLP Tan Kai Liang of Allen & Gledhill LLP Faith Boey of Allen & Gledhill LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Andrew Ang	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Joseph Chen	Joseph Chen & Co
Tham Wei Chern	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Tan Kai Liang	Allen & Gledhill LLP
Faith Boey	Allen & Gledhill LLP

4. Facts

Chan was the owner of a unit in Lock Cho Apartments.
The Property was sold en bloc on 14 August 2006.
Chan opposed the Collective Sale.
CDL was the purchaser of the Property.
Chan sued CDL, alleging violation of constitutional rights.
Chan did not raise his objections with the Strata Titles Board before the Collective Sale was approved.
Chan's share of the proceeds from the sale of the Property was paid into court and later released to his solicitors.

5. Formal Citations

Chan Kin Foo v City Developments Ltd, Suit No 586 of 2011(Registrar's Appeal No 312 of 2012), [2013] SGHC 61

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1974-03-20	Chan acquired strata title to his unit in Lock Cho Apartments.
2006-02-20	Agreement for the collective sale of the Property was dated.
2006-03-30	CDL was awarded the tender for the Property.
2006-08-14	The Strata Titles Board approved the collective sale of the Property to CDL.
2006-09-12	Lawyers for the Sale Committee wrote to Chan to inform him that the document for transfer of the Property to CDL was ready for his signature.
2006-09-19	Sessions for signing of the Transfer Document took place.
2006-09-20	Sessions for signing of the Transfer Document took place.
2006-09-21	Rodyk wrote to Chan again in an attempt to arrange for signing of the Transfer Document by 28 September 2006.
2006-09-22	Letter was delivered to Chan.
2006-09-29	Rodyk sent a final reminder to Chan to sign the Transfer Document.
2006-09-30	Ms Young hand-delivered the letter to Chan.
2006-10-02	A further attempt to have Chan sign the Transfer Document was made via a note left at Chan’s door by Ms Young.
2006-10-03	Rodyk published a notice in The Straits Times requesting Chan to contact them urgently.
2006-10-06	The three authorised representatives applied to the STB under s 84C of the Act to appoint Ms Young for the purposes of, inter alia, the execution of the Transfer Document and the delivery of vacant possession.
2006-11-14	The Transfer Document was executed by Ms Young for and on behalf of the Plaintiff and the collective sale was completed.
2007-02-15	Chan’s share of the proceeds from the sale of the Property, amounting to $840,981.37, was paid into court pursuant to an order of court.
2007-05-22	A letter of demand for vacant possession of the Unit was issued by CDL’s solicitors and delivered to Chan.
2007-06-25	Chan made a police report.
2007-07-11	CDL applied for and obtained a writ of possession against Chan.
2007-07-20	CDL gained entry to the Unit.
2007-07-26	CDL re-entered the Unit for the removal and storage of the chattels contained within.
2007-07-27	CDL re-entered the Unit for the removal and storage of the chattels contained within.
2007-08-01	The Property was demolished.
2007-11-01	The balance stakeholder moneys, an additional sum of $37,985.49, were paid into court pursuant to an order of court.
2007-12-01	The Property was demolished.
2007-09-20	CDL obtained a valuation of the chattels.
2008-10-20	Some of the chattels were sold by auction.
2011-03-22	These sums were released to Chan’s solicitors, Joseph Chen & Co.
2011-01-01	Chan brought Suit No 586 of 2011 to recover damages for wrongful transfer of the Property.
2012-01-01	CDL applied with Summons No 2443 of 2012 to strike out the action under O18 r 19(1) of the ROC and pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the court.
2013-03-14	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Violation of Article 12 of the Constitution
- Outcome: The court held that there was no violation of Article 12 as the collective sale process applied equally to all subsidiary proprietors.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2008] 4 SLR(R) 754
  - [1998] 2 SLR(R) 489
  - [2009] 3 SLR(R) 109
Violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
- Outcome: The court held that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is not binding and does not form part of local law.
- Category: Substantive
Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court found that bringing the Property Claim was an abuse of process as it served no useful purpose and was brought after the claim had become futile.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582
Proper Party to the Claim
- Outcome: The court found that the Property Claim was brought against the wrong party, but this was not a sufficient ground for striking out the claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] SGHC 249
  - [1988] 1 WLR 190

8. Remedies Sought

Damages for wrongful transfer of the Property
Account of the chattels which were found in the Unit and sold
Return of all remaining chattels which were found in the Unit

9. Cause of Actions

Wrongful transfer of property
Disregard of minority owners’ interests

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Appeals

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Lo Pui Sang v Mamata Kapildev Dave (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and other appeals	High Court	Yes	[2008] 4 SLR(R) 754	Singapore	Cited for the issue of whether collective sales in general violate Article 12 of the Constitution.
Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin	Unknown	Yes	[1997] 3 SLR(R) 649	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the power of striking out is to be exercised only in plain and obvious cases and the threshold for striking out an action is very high.
Public Prosecutor v Taw Cheng Kong	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1998] 2 SLR(R) 489	Singapore	Cited for the presumption that a particular law falls within the scope of Parliament’s powers and for the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution.
Public Prosecutor v Su Liang Yu	Malaysian court	Yes	[1976] 2 MLJ 128	Malaysia	Cited for the principles of equal justice under Article 12.
Ng Eng Ghee v Mamata Kapildev Dave (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 3 SLR(R) 109	Singapore	Cited for the duty of the Sales Committee to act in the interests of all subsidiary proprietors.
Chee Siok Chin v Minister for Home Affairs	Unknown	Yes	[2006] 1 SLR(R) 582	Singapore	Cited for the definition of abuse of process for the purposes of striking out.
Ashmore v British Coal Corporation	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1990] 2 QB 338	England and Wales	Cited for the proposition that it was an abuse of process not to raise an objection before the preliminary tribunal.
Hong Alvin v Chia Quee Khee	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 249	Singapore	Cited regarding the issue of locus standi and whether the plaintiff had the standing to bring a claim against the defendant.
Bradshaw v University College of Wales	Unknown	Yes	[1988] 1 WLR 190	England and Wales	Cited regarding the issue of locus standi.
Yong Vui Kong v Public Prosecutor and another matter	Unknown	Yes	[2010] 3 SLR 489	Singapore	Cited for the principle that customary international law must first be incorporated into Singapore law.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19(1)	Singapore
Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 12	Singapore
Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 2009 Rev Ed) s 84C	Singapore
Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 84A to 84G	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Collective Sale
En bloc sale
Strata Title
Minority Owners
Strata Titles Board
Constitution
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Abuse of Process
Property Claim
Sale Committee
Transfer Document

15.2 Keywords

Collective Sale
En bloc
Constitutional Rights
Property Ownership
Singapore
Strata Title
Discrimination

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Collective Sale	80
Constitutional Law	70
Property Law	60
Administrative Law	50
Civil Procedure	40
Company Law	30

16. Subjects

Property Law
Constitutional Law
Civil Procedure
Collective Sales