Quek Kwee Kee v Quek Khuay Chuah: Specific Performance & Valuation of Joo Chiat Properties
In Quek Kwee Kee Victoria v Quek Khuay Chuah, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute arising from a Settlement Agreement concerning the estate of the late Mr. Quek Kiat Siong. The plaintiffs, Quek Kwee Kee Victoria and another, sought specific performance to compel the defendant, Quek Khuay Chuah, to sell his one-sixth shares in two Joo Chiat properties to the first plaintiff, as agreed in the Settlement Agreement. The main issue was whether a valuation by Knight Frank, as stipulated in the agreement, was final and binding. Judith Prakash J held that the valuation was indeed final and binding, and ordered specific performance, compelling the defendant to sell his shares at the agreed price. The court also addressed issues related to payments for another property, 18 Tembeling Lane, but those orders were not under appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Specific performance ordered for the sale of shares in the Joo Chiat properties.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court case regarding specific performance of a settlement agreement for the sale of shares in Joo Chiat properties. The court ordered the defendant to sell his shares.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quek Kwee Kee Victoria (in her personal capacity and as executor of the estate of Quek Kiat Siong, deceased) | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Koh Swee Yen, Sim Mei Ling, Tang Shangwei |
| Quek Khuay Chuah | Defendant | Individual | Specific Performance Ordered | Lost | Lye Hoong Yip Raymond, Cheryl Yeo, Lim Lee Ling Colleen |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Koh Swee Yen | WongPartnership LLP |
| Sim Mei Ling | WongPartnership LLP |
| Tang Shangwei | WongPartnership LLP |
| Lye Hoong Yip Raymond | Union Law LLP |
| Cheryl Yeo | Union Law LLP |
| Lim Lee Ling Colleen | Union Law LLP |
4. Facts
- The deceased bequeathed his estate to his siblings and their children.
- Disputes arose among the beneficiaries, leading to several lawsuits.
- A Settlement Agreement was signed to resolve the disputes.
- The dispute concerned three properties: 95 Joo Chiat, 97 Joo Chiat, and 18 Tembeling Lane.
- The defendant was to sell his shares in the Joo Chiat properties to the first plaintiff at market value determined by Knight Frank.
- The defendant disputed Knight Frank's valuation, claiming it was too low.
- The first plaintiff sought specific performance of the Settlement Agreement.
5. Formal Citations
- Quek Kwee Kee Victoria (in her personal capacity and as executor of the estate of Quek Kiat Siong, deceased) and another v Quek Khuay Chuah, Originating Summons No 1018 of 2013, [2014] SGHC 143
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Settlement Agreement signed | |
| Defendant indicated readiness to sell shares in Joo Chiat properties | |
| Knight Frank appointed by first plaintiff | |
| Defendant informed about Knight Frank's appointment and fee splitting | |
| Knight Frank's valuation completed | |
| GSK Global valuation report issued | |
| Defendant's solicitor questioned Knight Frank's valuation | |
| Knight Frank responded to concerns about valuation | |
| First plaintiff informed defendant of payment for shares | |
| DTZ Debenham Tie Leung valuation report dated | |
| Jones Lang Laselle valuation report dated | |
| Defendant rejected Knight Frank's valuation | |
| First plaintiff asserted defendant had no basis to refuse transfer | |
| First plaintiff sent valuation reports by DTZ and JLL | |
| Proceedings commenced to compel sale of shares | |
| Orders made for defendant to sell shares and pay fees | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Specific Performance
- Outcome: Specific performance was ordered, compelling the defendant to sell his shares.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Adequacy of damages
- Substantial hardship
- Valuation of Property
- Outcome: The court held that the valuation by Knight Frank was final and binding.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Final and binding valuation
- Manifest error
- Independence of valuer
- Interpretation of Settlement Agreement
- Outcome: The court interpreted the settlement agreement to mean that the parties intended the Knight Frank valuation to be final and binding.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Intention of parties
- Clean break
8. Remedies Sought
- Specific Performance
- Order for Sale
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Specific Performance
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Campbell v Edwards | Not specified | Yes | [1976] 1 WLR 403 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that parties are bound by a valuation agreed upon, provided it is done honestly and in good faith. |
| Evergreat Construction Co Pte Ltd v Presscrete Engineering Pte Ltd | Not specified | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 634 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that courts should not interfere with a contractual bargain where parties have agreed to rely on an expert's determination, absent fraud or corruption. |
| Tan Yeow Khoon v Tan Yeow Tat | Not specified | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 486 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a valuation is final and binding unless it arises from collusion, fraud, or manifest error. |
| Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat | Not specified | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 188 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that differences in valuations are insufficient to prove manifest error. |
| McDonald’s Rest Restaurants Pte Ltd v Wisma Development Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2001] SGHC 375 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize the significance of the words 'final conclusive and binding' in a valuation clause. |
| Holland Leedon Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Metalform Asia Pte Ltd | Not specified | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 517 | Singapore | Cited for the point that the words 'final and binding' are significant when used in a clause. |
| Poh Cheng Chew v K P Poh & Partners Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 20 | Singapore | Cited for the point that in the absence of the words 'solely' or 'only', the court should not imply terms into a contract such that the expert determinator’s scope of discretion would be fettered. |
| Baber v Kenwood Manufacturing Co Ltd and Whinney Murray & Co | Not specified | Yes | [1978] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 175 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that anyone who agrees to accept the opinion of an expert accepts the risk of the expert being wrong. |
| Geowin Construction Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1256 | Not specified | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 1004 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a patent error on the face of the award or decision is an exception to the final and binding nature of a valuation. |
| Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor | Not specified | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 537 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that specific performance will only be granted if it is just to do so in light of all the circumstances. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 332, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Settlement Agreement
- Specific Performance
- Valuation
- Market Value
- Joo Chiat Properties
- Knight Frank
- Beneficiaries
- Estate
- Independent Valuer
15.2 Keywords
- Settlement Agreement
- Specific Performance
- Valuation
- Real Estate
- Singapore
- Contract Law
- Joo Chiat
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Real Estate
- Civil Litigation
- Settlements
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Real Property Law
- Civil Procedure
- Settlement Agreements
- Valuation Law