Su Ah Tee v Allister Lim: Breach of Contract & Negligence in Property Purchase
In Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan, the plaintiffs sued the defendants, Allister Lim and Thrumurgan, for breach of contract and negligence related to the purchase of a Housing Development Board (HDB) shophouse. The plaintiffs claimed the defendants failed to advise them about the property's short lease tenure and a head tenancy agreement. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, found the defendants liable for breach of duty of care, awarding damages to the plaintiffs. The defendants' third-party claims for indemnity or contribution from the vendor and property agents were partially successful.
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
Solicitors Allister Lim & Thrumurgan sued for breach of contract and negligence in a property purchase. The court found the defendants liable.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SU AH TEE | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Thomas Lei |
| SU HONG QUAN | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Thomas Lei |
| LYE YIN | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Thomas Lei |
| M/S ALLISTER LIM AND THRUMURGAN | Defendant | Partnership | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | Christopher Anand Daniel, Ganga Avadiar, Arlene Foo |
| ALLISTER LIM WEE SING | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost | Christopher Anand Daniel, Ganga Avadiar, Arlene Foo |
| WILLIAM CHENG | Third Party | Individual | Contribution Claim Successful | Partial | Subbiah Pillai |
| NG SING | Third Party | Individual | Contribution Claim Successful | Partial | Joseph Chai |
| SGR PROPERTY PTE LTD | Third Party | Corporation | Judgment in Default | Default |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Thomas Lei | Lawrence Chua & Partners |
| Christopher Anand Daniel | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Ganga Avadiar | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Arlene Foo | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Subbiah Pillai | Cosmas LLP |
| Joseph Chai | Joseph Chai & Co |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs engaged defendants as solicitors for property purchase.
- Property had only 17 years remaining on a 30-year lease.
- Property was subject to a head tenancy agreement.
- Defendants failed to advise plaintiffs about the short lease.
- Defendants failed to advise plaintiffs about the head tenancy.
- Plaintiffs overpaid for the property due to lack of information.
- Vendor misrepresented the lease duration to the property agent.
5. Formal Citations
- Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another, Suit No 663 of 2011, [2014] SGHC 159
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lease for the property commenced | |
| SGR-Option received and accepted by Su | |
| Defendants became aware of the tenure problem | |
| Option to purchase exercised | |
| Additional deposit paid | |
| Plaintiffs emailed copies of two tenancy agreements to the defendants | |
| Bank offered a 30-year term loan | |
| Plaintiffs emailed copies of two tenancy agreements, floor plan and Invoice Factoring’s offer to Lochen to the defendants | |
| Lender-bank appointed the defendants as solicitors in the mortgage transaction | |
| Invoice Factoring Tenancy stamped | |
| Defendants lodged a caveat against the Property on behalf of the lender-bank | |
| E&T faxed three tenancy agreements to the defendants | |
| Invoice Factoring Tenancy disclosed to Su | |
| Completion date for the sale and purchase of the Property | |
| Su received letters from Invoice Factoring | |
| Su received letters from Invoice Factoring | |
| Su contacted Fu to enquire about the tenure problem | |
| Su met Lim to discuss the tenure problem | |
| Mr Lei’s firm sent a letter of demand to ALT | |
| Su formally asked ALT and Lim to stop working on the tenancy disputes | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found the defendants liable for breach of contract due to their failure to properly advise the plaintiffs.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to advise on leasehold tenure
- Failure to advise on tenancy agreements
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the defendants liable for negligence in failing to inform the plaintiffs about the property's tenure and tenancy issues.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to conduct proper title search
- Failure to inform client of material information
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found William Cheng liable for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the property's lease and tenancy.
- Category: Substantive
- Negligent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found Ng Sing liable for negligent misrepresentation regarding the property's lease and tenancy.
- Category: Substantive
- Contribution
- Outcome: The court allowed the defendants' claim for contribution from the third parties, apportioning liability among them.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Negligence
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Negligent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Conveyancing
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Transactions
11. Industries
- Legal Services
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Midland Bank v Hett, Stubbs & Kemp | N/A | Yes | [1979] Ch 384 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the scope of a solicitor's duty in contract depends on the particular retainer and circumstances. |
| Yeo Yoke Mui v Ng Liang Poh | N/A | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 701 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the scope of a solicitor's duty in contract depends on the particular retainer and circumstances. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for establishing a single test for determining the imposition of a duty of care in all claims arising out of negligence. |
| Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AG | N/A | Yes | [2011] 4 SLR 559 | Singapore | Cited in relation to assumption of responsibility under the limb of proximity. |
| Bown v Gould & Swayne | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] PNLR 130 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the weight of expert evidence in determining a solicitor's duty of care. |
| Pickersgill v Riley | UKPC | No | [2004] UKPC 14 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the scope of a solicitor's duty is governed by the instructions received and the circumstances of the case. |
| Clark Boyce v Mouat | N/A | No | [1994] 1 AC 428 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a solicitor is not obliged to investigate matters which his client had not asked him to investigate. |
| Credit Lyonnais v Russell Jones & Walker | N/A | Yes | [2002] PNLR 2 | N/A | Cited for the principle that if a solicitor becomes aware of a risk to the client, it is his duty to inform the client. |
| Jackson & Powell on Professional Liability | N/A | Yes | [2012] 7th Ed | N/A | Cited for the principle that a solicitor has no general duty to advise a client on matters of business. |
| Platform Funding Ltd v Bank of Scotland Plc | N/A | Yes | [2009] 2 WLR 1016 | N/A | Cited for the principle that fraud is a mechanism of loss and does not determine the breach of the solicitor’s obligations. |
| Bristol and West Building Society v Mothew | N/A | Yes | [1998] Ch 1 | N/A | Cited for the principle that where a client sues his solicitor for negligently failing to give proper advice, he must show what advice should have been given. |
| Lie Hendri Rusli v Wong Tan & Molly Lim (a firm) | N/A | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 594 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where a client sues his solicitor for negligently failing to give proper advice, he must show what advice should have been given. |
| County Personnel (Employment Agency) Ltd v Alan R Pulver & Co | N/A | Yes | [1987] 1 WLR 916 | N/A | Cited for the principle that damages for tort or breach of contract are assessed at the date of the breach. |
| Dodd Properties (Kent) Ltd v Canterbury City Council | N/A | Yes | [1980] 1 WLR 433 | N/A | Cited for the principle that damages for tort or breach of contract are assessed at the date of the breach. |
| Oates v Anthony Pittman & Co | N/A | No | [1998] PNLR 683 | N/A | Cited regarding the use of a different method of assessment when the diminution in value test is not appropriate. |
| Keydon Estates Ltd v Eversheds LLP | N/A | No | [2005] PNLR 817 | N/A | Cited regarding the use of a different method of assessment when the diminution in value test is not appropriate. |
| BBL v Eagle Star | N/A | Yes | [1995] QB 375 | N/A | Cited for the principle that market changes in value are normally regarded as a reasonable consequence within the scope of a solicitor’s duty of care. |
| The Liverpool (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1963] P 64 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff does not have to take steps to recover compensation for his loss from parties who, in addition to the defendant, are liable to him. |
| Peters v East Midlands Strategic Health Authority | N/A | Yes | [2009] EWCA Civ 145 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff does not have to take steps to recover compensation for his loss from parties who, in addition to the defendant, are liable to him. |
| Haugesund Kommune v Depfa ACS Bank | N/A | Yes | [2011] PNLR 14 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a plaintiff does not have to take steps to recover compensation for his loss from parties who, in addition to the defendant, are liable to him. |
| Tan Juay Pah v Kimly Construction Pte Ltd and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 549 | Singapore | Cited for the three-step test established in Royal Brompton for contribution claims. |
| Royal Brompton Hospital Trust v Hammond | House of Lords | Yes | [2002] 1 WLR 1397 | United Kingdom | Cited for the three-step test for contribution claims. |
| McCallion Brothers Limited v Fisher | Northern Irish High Court | Yes | [2012] NICh 5 | Northern Ireland | Cited for the principle that the same harm has to be done for contribution claims. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | N/A | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation. |
| Trans-World (Aluminium) Ltd v Cornelder China (Singapore) | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 501 | Singapore | Cited for observations on misrepresentation by silence. |
| Pasley v Freeman | N/A | Yes | (1789) 3 Term Rep 51 | N/A | Cited for the principle that every deceit comprehends a lie, but a deceit is more than a lie. |
| Deutsche Bank AG v Chang Tse Wen and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 886 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of assumption of responsibility. |
| Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 307 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 2 of the Misrepresentation Act relates to a claim for damages. |
| HIH Casualty & General Insurance Ltd v Chase Manhattan Bank | N/A | Yes | [2003] 1 CLC 358 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a person cannot rely on a contract to exclude liability for his own fraud. |
| The Inntrepreneur Pub Co Ltd v East Crown Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2000] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 611 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an entire agreement clause precludes a party from using statements made in the course of negotiations against the other party. |
| Axa Sun Life Services plc v Campbell Martin Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2011] 1 CLC 312 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an entire agreement clause does not exclude liability for misrepresentations unless expressly provided for. |
| Yuen Chow Hin and another v ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 786 | Singapore | Cited for the property agent’s duty to act in the interest of his principal. |
| Nationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2010] 1 WLR 258 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the moral blameworthiness and the causative potency of the fraud is very much greater than that of negligence. |
| Clydesdale Bank Plc v Workman | N/A | Yes | [2014] PNLR 18 | N/A | Cited for the principle that dishonesty also correlated to a higher contribution from that party. |
| Dubai Aluminium Co Ltd v Salaam | N/A | Yes | [2003] 2 AC 366 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the object of contribution proceedings under the Contribution Act is to ensure that each party responsible for the damage makes an appropriate contribution. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Estate Agents Act (Cap 95A, 2011 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2011 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Leasehold Tenure
- Head Tenancy
- Conveyancing
- Solicitor's Duty of Care
- Misrepresentation
- Diminution in Value
- Contribution
15.2 Keywords
- breach of contract
- negligence
- solicitor
- conveyancing
- property purchase
- leasehold
- tenancy
- misrepresentation
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Professional Liability
- Real Estate
- Contract Law
- Torts
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Negligence
- Real Estate Law
- Civil Procedure
- Professional Negligence