Per Ah Seng Robin v HDB: Quashing Order Refused for HDB's Compulsory Acquisition of Flat Due to Illegal Subletting
Robin Per Ah Seng and Tee Bee Kiaw applied for a quashing order against the Housing and Development Board (HDB) and the Minister for National Development's decisions to compulsorily acquire their flat due to illegal subletting. The High Court dismissed the application, citing that it was filed beyond the three-month period stipulated in the Rules of Court and that the applicants failed on the substantive merits of the case. The court found that the HDB's decision was justified under the Housing and Development Act, as the applicants had sublet the flat without proper consent and were not in continuous occupation.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed on the basis that it was made beyond the three-month period and also that the Applicants failed on the substantive merits of the case.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Robin Per Ah Seng's application for a quashing order against HDB's compulsory acquisition of his flat was dismissed due to illegal subletting and delay.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ROBIN PER AH SENG | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Kirpal Singh s/o Hakam Singh |
| TEE BEE KIAW | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | Kirpal Singh s/o Hakam Singh |
| HOUSING AND DEVELOPMENT BOARD | Respondent | Statutory Board | Successful Defence | Won | Dhillon Dinesh Singh, Teh Shi Ying |
| ATTORNEY-GENERAL'S CHAMBERS | Respondent | Government Agency | Successful Defence | Won | Khoo Boo Jin, Ang Ming Sheng Terence, Kanesh Balasubramaniam |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tay Yong Kwang | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kirpal Singh s/o Hakam Singh | Kirpal & Associates |
| Dhillon Dinesh Singh | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Teh Shi Ying | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Khoo Boo Jin | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Ang Ming Sheng Terence | Attorney-General's Chambers |
| Kanesh Balasubramaniam | Attorney-General's Chambers |
4. Facts
- Applicants purchased the Property on 1 October 2007 for $368,000 under the HDB’s Public Scheme.
- Applicants entered into a corporate tenancy agreement with Offshore Construction Specialist Pte Ltd on 21 January 2009.
- HDB received an anonymous tip-off on 23 December 2009 alleging that the Applicants were subletting the entire flat.
- HDB conducted an inspection of the Property on 25 May 2010 and obtained a statement from Mr Sayeh Dedi Mahdy.
- HDB served a notice of intention to compulsorily acquire the Property on 6 October 2010.
- Applicants sent a letter of objection to HDB on 28 October 2010.
- HDB informed the Applicants that their appeal was unsuccessful on 29 November 2010.
- Applicants exercised their right of further appeal to the Minister on 27 December 2010.
- HDB informed the Applicants that their appeal to the Minister was unsuccessful on 14 March 2011.
- HDB lodged the relevant instrument with the Registrar of Titles on 7 April 2011 and title of the Property was vested in HDB on 11 April 2011.
- HDB served the notice of vesting on the Applicants on 29 April 2011.
- HDB recovered possession of the Property on 26 April 2013.
5. Formal Citations
- Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and another, Originating Summons No 440 of 2014, [2014] SGHC 270
- Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and another, Civil Appeal No 188 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 62
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Applicants purchased the Property under the HDB’s Public Scheme. | |
| Applicants entered into a corporate tenancy agreement with Offshore Construction Specialist Pte Ltd. | |
| Commencement of the lease with Offshore Construction Specialist Pte Ltd. | |
| HDB received an anonymous tip-off alleging that the Applicants were subletting the entire flat. | |
| HDB officers conducted an inspection of the Property. | |
| HDB sent a letter of intention to the Applicants. | |
| HDB served a notice of intention by pasting it on the main door of the Property. | |
| Applicants sent a letter of objection to HDB. | |
| HDB informed the Applicants that their appeal was unsuccessful. | |
| Applicants exercised their right of further appeal to the Minister. | |
| HDB informed the Applicants that their appeal to the Minister was unsuccessful. | |
| HDB lodged the relevant instrument with the Registrar of Titles. | |
| Title of the Property was vested in HDB. | |
| HDB’s notice of vesting issued. | |
| HDB served the notice of vesting on the Applicants. | |
| HDB sent a final reminder letter to the Applicants. | |
| HDB recovered possession of the Property. | |
| HDB attached a completion account setting out the compensation sum awarded. | |
| Kirpal & Associates sent a letter to HDB requesting HDB to hold its hands. | |
| HDB sent a letter to the Solicitors, informing them that HDB was unable to withdraw the notice of intention and the notice of vesting. | |
| Applicants commenced this originating summons. | |
| The parties first came before the court. | |
| The ICA provided the details on the Applicants’ address. | |
| The parties appeared before the court again. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Illegality
- Outcome: The court held that HDB had not erred in law when it relied on the Applicants’ break in continuous occupation of the Property as a basis for the compulsory acquisition.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Misdirection of law
- Failure to establish precedent fact
- Related Cases:
- [1995] 1 SLR(R) 533
- [1985] 1 AC 374
- Irrationality
- Outcome: The court held that the Respondents had not acted irrationally in their decision to compulsorily acquire the Property.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1948] 1 KB 223
- Procedural Impropriety
- Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of the rules of natural justice in relation to the disclosure of evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of natural justice
- Failure to disclose evidence
- Related Cases:
- [2008] 2 SLR(R) 802
- [2013] 2 SLR 844
- [1987] AC 625
- Delay in Application for Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court held that the application was made after the three-month period set out in O 53 r 1(6) of the RC and that the Applicants had not accounted for the delay to the satisfaction of the court.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Accounting for delay
- Commencement of time period
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 2 SLR(R) 568
- [2011] 3 SLR 94
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing order in respect of four decisions made by the respondents
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for a quashing order
10. Practice Areas
- Public Law
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Attorney-General v Venice-Simplon Orient Express Inc Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 SLR(R) 533 | Singapore | Cited for the three grounds of review: illegality, irrationality and procedural impropriety. |
| Teng Fuh Holdings Pte Ltd v Collector of Land Revenue | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 568 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the three-month period starts to run from the date on which the right to seek relief arises and for the issue of accounting for delay. |
| UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 94 | Singapore | Cited by the Applicants in support of their argument that time should start running from HDB’s final rejection letter. |
| Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 115 | Singapore | Cited by the Applicants to argue that the delay was satisfactorily accounted for. |
| Council of Civil Service Unions and others v Minister for the Civil Service | House of Lords | Yes | [1985] 1 AC 374 | England | Cited for the definition of illegality as a ground for judicial review. |
| Associated Provincial Picture Houses, Limited v Wednesbury Corporation | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [1948] 1 KB 223 | England | Cited for the origin of the ground of irrationality, also referred to as Wednesbury unreasonableness. |
| Goh Gin Chye and another v Peck Teck Kian Realty Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1987] SLR(R) 195 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the intention of the parties is an important consideration in determining the relationship of landlord and tenant. |
| Chng Suan Tze v Minister for Home Affairs and others and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1988] 2 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited for the scope of review to be undertaken by the court depending on whether the discretion granted to the decision-making authority was conditional upon the establishment of an objective jurisdictional or precedent fact. |
| Kay Swee Pin v Singapore Island Country Club | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 802 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that a duty to act in accordance with natural justice is nowadays considered as a duty to act fairly. |
| Manjit Singh s/o Kirpal Singh and another v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 2 SLR 844 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the content of the duty to act fairly varies with the circumstances of the case. |
| Lloyd v McMahon | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 625 | England | Cited for the principle that the content of the duty to act fairly varies with the circumstances of the case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 53 r 1(6) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Compulsory acquisition
- Subletting
- Housing and Development Board
- Minister for National Development
- Originating summons
- Quashing order
- Notice of intention
- Notice of vesting
- Corporate tenancy agreement
- Continuous occupation
15.2 Keywords
- Housing and Development Board
- HDB
- Compulsory Acquisition
- Subletting
- Judicial Review
- Quashing Order
- Singapore
- Property Law
16. Subjects
- Real Property
- Housing
- Judicial Review
- Administrative Law
17. Areas of Law
- Administrative Law
- Housing Law
- Judicial Review