Cheng William v Allister Lim: Negligence Claim Over Shophouse Lease Misrepresentation
In Cheng William v Allister Lim, the Court of Appeal of Singapore heard appeals from both the seller, Cheng William, and the solicitor, Allister Lim, following a High Court decision in a negligence claim. Mr. Su Ah Tee, a businessman, sued Allister Lim for professional negligence after discovering that a shophouse he purchased had only 17 years remaining on its lease, contrary to the represented 62 years. The High Court found both Cheng and Lim liable, along with the property agent, Ng Sing. The Court of Appeal upheld the findings of liability but adjusted the apportionment of damages, finding Su contributorily negligent and reallocating the percentages of liability among the parties. The appeal was allowed in part.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed in part.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Businessman Su Ah Tee sued solicitor Allister Lim for negligence after discovering a shophouse had a shorter lease than represented. The court found both the seller and solicitor liable.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheng William | Appellant, Defendant | Individual | Appeal dismissed in part | Partial | Melvin Chan Kah Keen, Rachel Tan Pei Qian |
| Allister Lim & Thrumurgan | Respondent, Appellant | Partnership | Appeal allowed in part | Partial | Christopher Anand s/o Daniel, Ganga d/o Avadiar, Foo Li Chuan Arlene |
| Su Ah Tee | Plaintiff | Individual | Partial Victory | Partial | Thomas Lei, Chua Lyn Ern |
| Ng Sing | Other | Individual | Liable for Negligent Misrepresentation | Lost | |
| SGR Property Pte Ltd | Other | Corporation | Judgment in default | Default |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Sundaresh Menon | Chief Justice | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | No |
| Quentin Loh | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Melvin Chan Kah Keen | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Rachel Tan Pei Qian | TSMP Law Corporation |
| Christopher Anand s/o Daniel | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Ganga d/o Avadiar | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Foo Li Chuan Arlene | Advocatus Law LLP |
| Thomas Lei | Lawrence Chua & Partners |
| Chua Lyn Ern | Lawrence Chua & Partners |
4. Facts
- Su Ah Tee purchased a shophouse for $900,000.
- The shophouse was located at Block 63 Kallang Bahru #01-423 Singapore 330063.
- The seller, Cheng William, misrepresented that the shophouse had a 62-year lease.
- Su's solicitor, Allister Lim, did not inform him of the actual 17-year lease.
- Su claimed he was told the shophouse had a 62-year lease.
- The judge found that Su never informed Lim that he was told the shophouse had 62 years remaining on its lease.
- Lim did two title searches showing only 17 years left on the lease.
5. Formal Citations
- Cheng William v Allister Lim & Thrumurgan and another and another appeal, Civil Appeal Nos 148 and 152 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 15
- Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties), , [2014] SGHC 159
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lim acted for Su in the purchase of some other shophouses. | |
| Cheng filed Civil Appeal No 148 of 2014. | |
| The Defendants filed Civil Appeal No 152 of 2014. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Professional Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the solicitor liable for negligence in failing to inform the client of the remaining lease term.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to inform client of material information
- Breach of duty of care
- Related Cases:
- [2014] SGHC 159
- Contributory Negligence
- Outcome: The court found the client contributorily negligent for failing to inform the solicitor of the misrepresentation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to disclose material information to solicitor
- Related Cases:
- [1976] QB 286
- [1999] 3 SLR(R) 377
- [2007] 4 SLR 513
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found the seller liable for fraudulent misrepresentation regarding the lease term.
- Category: Substantive
- Apportionment of Liability
- Outcome: The court adjusted the apportionment of liability between the seller, solicitor, and property agent.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1997] 1 WLR 426
- [1947] 1 KB 598
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Professional Liability
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Legal Services
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 159 | Singapore | The current appeal is against the High Court's decision. The Court of Appeal refers to the High Court's judgment extensively, but disagrees with some aspects of it. |
| Froom v Butcher | QB | Yes | [1976] QB 286 | England | Approved for the principle that contributory negligence reduces the quantum of damages payable to plaintiffs if they fail to safeguard their own interests. |
| Parno v SC Marine Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 3 SLR(R) 377 | Singapore | Approved Froom v Butcher for the principle that contributory negligence reduces the quantum of damages payable to plaintiffs if they fail to safeguard their own interests. |
| Astley v Austrust Ltd | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1999) 197 CLR 1 | Australia | Approved for the principle that contributory negligence reduces the quantum of damages payable to plaintiffs if they fail to safeguard their own interests. |
| PlanAssure PAC (formerly known as Patrick Lee PAC) v Gaelic Inns Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR 513 | Singapore | Approved Astley v Austrust Ltd for the principle that contributory negligence reduces the quantum of damages payable to plaintiffs if they fail to safeguard their own interests. |
| Butterfield v Forrester | KB | Yes | (1809) 11 East 60 | England | Cited to illustrate the common law position that contributory negligence operated as a complete defence against a claim in damages, but this is no longer the case following statutory intervention. |
| Davies v Mann | Exch | Yes | (1842) 10 M & W 546 | England | Cited to illustrate the common law position that contributory negligence operated as a complete defence against a claim in damages, but this is no longer the case following statutory intervention. |
| Football League Ltd v Edge Ellison | EWHC | Yes | [2006] EWHC 1462 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that courts should be slow in finding contributory negligence on the part of a solicitor’s client. |
| Hondon Development Ltd and another v Powerise Investments Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 HKLR 605 | Hong Kong | Cited for the principle that courts should be slow in finding contributory negligence on the part of a solicitor’s client. |
| Birmingham Midshires Mortgage Services Ltd v David Parry & Co | N/A | Yes | [1998] PNLR 249 | N/A | Cited as an example of a case where lenders are particularly well-placed to spot problems as they have the resources and means for this. |
| Omega Trust Co Ltd and another v Wright Son & Pepper and another (No 2) | N/A | Yes | [1998] PNLR 337 | N/A | Cited as an example of a case where lenders are particularly well-placed to spot problems as they have the resources and means for this. |
| Crossman v Stewart | N/A | Yes | (1977) 5 CCLT 45 | N/A | Cited as an example of a case where a patient was held liable in contributory negligence for taking larger doses of a negligently prescribed drug. |
| Carradine Properties Ltd v D J Freeman & Co | N/A | Yes | (1989) 5 Const LJ 267 | N/A | Cited as an example of a case where the claimant had not informed the solicitors that it had an insurance policy to begin with. |
| Fong Maun Yee and another v Yoong Weng Ho Robert | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR(R) 751 | Singapore | Cited as an example of a case where a businessman client was contributorily negligent for having failed to tell his solicitor that he suspected that something was amiss. |
| Edwards v Lee | N/A | Yes | [1991] 141 NLJ 1517 | N/A | Cited as an example of a case where the claimants’ damages were reduced by 50% because of their failure to mention the telephone conversation that would have alerted them (the solicitors) that the sellers were themselves about to become victims of a fraud. |
| Mouat v Clark Boyce | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [1992] 2 NZLR 559 | New Zealand | Cited for the principle that failure to provide adequate information to the professional adviser and inflexibility in responding to advice received may be one of the causes of the damage. |
| Dawe v Brown | Newfoundland Supreme Court | Yes | (1995) 130 Nfld & PEIR 281 | Canada | Cited for the principle that it is incumbent on the client to explain the problem fully, provide all facts pertaining to the matter including anything which might be detrimental to the possibility of a successful claim. |
| Downs and another v Chappell and another | N/A | Yes | [1997] 1 WLR 426 | N/A | Discusses the apportionment of damages between a seller who misrepresented the value of a property and the seller’s accountant who repeated that misrepresentation. |
| Collins v Hertfordshire County Council and another | N/A | Yes | [1947] 1 KB 598 | N/A | Discusses the apportionment of liability and the extent of a person's responsibility for the damage. |
| Smith v Bray (Wickham, third party) | N/A | Yes | (1939) 56 TLR 200 | N/A | Decision followed in Collins v Hertfordshire County Council and another. |
| Randolph v Tuck | N/A | Yes | [1962] 1 QB 175 | N/A | Cited for the principle that both causative responsibility and blameworthiness have to be considered in determining each party’s contribution. |
| Acrecrest Ltd v Hattrell & Partners | N/A | Yes | (1982) 252 EG 1107 | N/A | Cited for the principle that both causative responsibility and blameworthiness have to be considered in determining each party’s contribution. |
| Madden v Quirke | N/A | Yes | [1989] 1 WLR 702 | N/A | Cited for the principle that both causative responsibility and blameworthiness have to be considered in determining each party’s contribution. |
| Nationwide Building Society v Dunlop Haywards Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2010] 1 WLR 258 | N/A | Cited as a case which demonstrates that the courts will take fraud and dishonesty into account. |
| Clydesdale Bank Plc v Workman | N/A | Yes | [2014] PNLR 18 | N/A | Cited as a case which demonstrates that the courts will take fraud and dishonesty into account. |
| Stapley v Gypsum Mines Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1953] AC 663 | N/A | Cited for the principle that blameworthiness is a relevant consideration in the reduction of damages in contributory negligence. |
| Davies v Swan Motor Co (Swansea) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1949] 2 KB 291 | N/A | Cited for the principle that blameworthiness is a relevant consideration in the reduction of damages in contributory negligence. |
| Goh Sin Huat Electrical Pte Ltd v Ho See Jui (trading as Xuanhua Art Gallery) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 1038 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to intervene in a trial judge’s decision in apportioning liability. |
| Capps v Miller | N/A | Yes | [1989] 2 All ER 333 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an appellate court is permitted to interfere with a trial judge’s decision in apportioning liability if the trial judge erred in principle. |
| Holland Hannen and Cubitts (Northern) Ltd v Welsh Health Technical Services Organisation | N/A | Yes | (1985) 35 BLR 1 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an appellate court is permitted to interfere with a trial judge’s decision in apportioning liability if the trial judge erred in principle. |
| Fitzgerald v Lane and another | N/A | Yes | [1989] AC 328 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a court should first determine the extent of the reduction in the damages to be awarded to the claimant by reference to the claimant’s contributory fault and then apportion the liability that is found among the defendant(s) and third parties. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Civil Law Act (Cap 43, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Contributory Negligence Act (Cap 54, 2002 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Shophouse
- Leasehold
- Conveyancing
- Misrepresentation
- Contributory Negligence
- Apportionment of Liability
15.2 Keywords
- negligence
- shophouse
- lease
- misrepresentation
- solicitor
- conveyancing
- contributory negligence
- apportionment
16. Subjects
- Professional Negligence
- Property Law
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
17. Areas of Law
- Professional Negligence
- Conveyancing Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Property Law