Per Ah Seng Robin v HDB: HDB Flat Compulsory Acquisition for Unauthorized Subletting
Mr. Robin Per Ah Seng and Mdm. Tee Bee Kiaw appealed the High Court's decision regarding the Housing and Development Board's (HDB) compulsory acquisition of their flat for unauthorized subletting. The Court of Appeal of Singapore, comprising Chao Hick Tin JA, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, and Judith Prakash J, dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence that the appellants had sublet the entire flat without the HDB's prior written consent, violating Section 56(1)(h) of the Housing and Development Act. The court also rejected the appellants' claim of a breach of natural justice.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding HDB's compulsory acquisition of a flat for unauthorized subletting. The court dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence of illegal subletting.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| The Attorney-General | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Khoo Boo Jin of Attorney-General’s Chambers May Ng of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ang Ming Sheng Terence of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Housing and Development Board | Respondent | Statutory Board | Appeal Dismissed | Won | |
| ROBIN PER AH SENG | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| TEE BEE KIAW | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Khoo Boo Jin | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| May Ng | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Ang Ming Sheng Terence | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Dhillon Dinesh Singh | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Teh Shi Ying | Allen & Gledhill LLP |
| Kirpal Singh s/o Hakam Singh | Kirpal & Associates |
4. Facts
- Appellants purchased a four-room HDB flat in Bukit Batok in 2007.
- Appellants took a concessionary loan from HDB to purchase the flat.
- Appellants entered into a sub-tenancy agreement to rent out two bedrooms.
- HDB received an anonymous tip-off that the entire flat was being sublet.
- HDB officers inspected the flat and found signs of full subletting.
- A foreign worker admitted the appellants did not reside in the flat.
- Appellants owned other private properties which they did not declare.
5. Formal Citations
- Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and another, Civil Appeal No 188 of 2014, [2015] SGCA 62
- Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and another, , [2015] 2 SLR 19
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellants purchased Blue Horizon property | |
| Appellants purchased the Flat from the resale market | |
| Tee Bee Kiaw purchased the Centris property | |
| Appellants entered into a sub-tenancy agreement with Offshore Construction Specialists Pte Ltd | |
| Sub-Tenancy Agreement commenced | |
| HDB received an anonymous tip-off about the subletting | |
| Appellants declared occupiers on HDB's online portal | |
| HDB officers conducted an inspection of the Flat | |
| HDB sent a letter of intention to the appellants | |
| HDB notified the appellants of its intention to compulsorily acquire the Flat | |
| Appellants sent a letter of objection to the HDB | |
| HDB informed the appellants that their appeal was unsuccessful | |
| Appellants submitted an appeal to the Minister | |
| HDB informed the appellants that their appeal had been rejected by the Minister | |
| HDB lodged instrument to vest title to the Flat in itself | |
| Registrar of Titles registered and endorsed title to the Flat in the HDB | |
| HDB issued Notice of Vesting and To Take Possession | |
| Member of Parliament wrote a letter of appeal to the Minister on the appellants’ behalf | |
| Member of Parliament wrote another letter of appeal to the Head of the HDB’s Bukit Batok Branch Office | |
| Meeting between Per and Teo | |
| Appellants retained Kirpal & Associates | |
| Kirpal & Associates wrote to the HDB refuting the allegations | |
| Per met with HDB officers | |
| Another meeting with the HDB was held | |
| Per submitted copies of passport pages to the HDB | |
| Kirpal & Associates replied stating that Per and his family had been residing in the Flat between April and July 2010 | |
| HDB sent the final rejection to Kirpal & Associates | |
| Appellants filed Originating Summons No 440 of 2014 | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Unauthorized Subletting
- Outcome: The court found sufficient evidence that the appellants had sublet the entire flat without the HDB's prior written consent, thus breaching the Housing and Development Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Breach of lease agreement
- Failure to obtain prior written consent
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of natural justice as the appellants were sufficiently informed of the case against them and had the opportunity to make meaningful representations.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to disclose evidence
- Right to be heard
- Ouster Clause
- Outcome: The court proceeded on the assumption that the ouster clause in s 56(6) of the Act does not bar the court from reviewing the Minister’s decision.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Delay in Filing for Judicial Review
- Outcome: The court found that the appellants were not in breach of Order 53 Rule 1(6) of the Rules of Court as the three-month period should be reckoned from the date of the final rejection.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Compliance with Order 53 Rule 1(6) of the Rules of Court
- Satisfactory explanation for delay
8. Remedies Sought
- Quashing Orders
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Housing and Development Act s 56(1)(h)
- Judicial Review
10. Practice Areas
- Real Estate Litigation
- Judicial Review
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per Ah Seng Robin and another v Housing and Development Board and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 19 | Singapore | The decision from which this appeal arose. The Court of Appeal affirmed the High Court's decision. |
| Wong Kin Hoong and another v Ketua Pengarah Jabatan Alam Sekitar and another | Federal Court | Yes | [2013] 4 MLJ 161 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the time frame in applying for judicial review is fundamental and goes to jurisdiction. |
| Chiu Teng @ Kallang Pte Ltd v Singapore Land Authority | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 1047 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no specific time limit prescribed for seeking leave to apply for a mandatory order or a prohibiting order. |
| Chai Chwan v Singapore Medical Council | High Court | Yes | [2009] SGHC 115 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no specific time limit prescribed for seeking leave to apply for a mandatory order or a prohibiting order. |
| 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 an application for leave to seek a mandatory order should be brought within a reasonable time. |
| UDL Marine (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | High Court | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 94 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that time may start to run later where the respondent’s conduct indicates a willingness to reconsider its earlier decision. |
| Zheng Jianxing v Attorney-General | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1100 | Singapore | Cited to show that the applicant's explanation of being a layperson without legal advice was insufficient to account for the delay. |
| Regina v Stratford-on-Avon District Council and Another, ex parte Jackson | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1985] 1 WLR 1319 | England and Wales | Cited to show that there was good reason for the applicant's delay as her delay had been occasioned by her applying for and obtaining legal aid, and by her attempting to persuade the Secretary of State for the Environment to intervene. |
| Regina v Secretary of State for the Home Department, ex parte Ruddock | High Court of Justice | Yes | [1987] 1 WLR 1482 | England and Wales | Cited to show that the applicant's delay had been satisfactorily accounted for because the applicant was not made aware of the decision sought to be impugned until a late stage. |
| Regina v Hammersmith and Fulham London Borough Council, ex parte Burkett | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] Env LR 684 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that judicial review is in principle a remedy of last resort. |
| Re Application by Yee Yut Ee | High Court | Yes | [1977–1978] SLR(R) 490 | Singapore | Our courts have viewed ouster clauses with circumspection and have declined to give effect to them on several occasions |
| Stansfield Business International Pte Ltd v Minister for Manpower (formerly known as Minister for Labour) | High Court | Yes | [1999] 2 SLR(R) 866 | Singapore | Our courts have viewed ouster clauses with circumspection and have declined to give effect to them on several occasions |
| Re Raffles Town Club Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 1101 | Singapore | Our courts have viewed ouster clauses with circumspection and have declined to give effect to them on several occasions |
| Borissik Svetlanta v Urban Redevelopment Authority | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 92 | Singapore | Our courts have viewed ouster clauses with circumspection and have declined to give effect to them on several occasions |
| B Surinder Singh Kanda v Government of the Federation of Malaya | Privy Council | Yes | [1962] AC 322 | Malaysia | If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. |
| Mustafa Ahunbay v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 903 | Singapore | If the right to be heard is to be a real right which is worth anything, it must carry with it a right in the accused man to know the case which is made against him. |
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) s 56(1)(h) | Singapore |
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) s 56(3) | Singapore |
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) s 56(4) | Singapore |
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) s 56(5) | Singapore |
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) s 56(6) | Singapore |
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) s 57(1)(a)(ii) | Singapore |
| Industrial Relations Act (Cap 136, 2004 Rev Ed) s 47 | Singapore |
| Employment Act (Cap 91, 1996 Rev Ed) s 14(5) | Singapore |
| Income Tax Act (Cap 134, 2008 Rev Ed) s 79(3) | Singapore |
| Land Acquisition Act (Cap 152, 1985 Rev Ed) s 5(3) | Singapore |
| Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998 Rev Ed) s 22(7) | Singapore |
| Maintenance of Religious Harmony Act (Cap 167A, 2001 Rev Ed) s 18 | Singapore |
| Constitution of the Republic of Singapore (1985 Rev Ed, 1999 Reprint) Art 93 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Compulsory Acquisition
- Unauthorized Subletting
- HDB Flat
- Letter of Intention
- Notice of Vesting
- Ouster Clause
- Natural Justice
- Judicial Review
15.2 Keywords
- HDB
- Housing and Development Board
- Compulsory Acquisition
- Subletting
- Judicial Review
- Singapore
- Property Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Compulsory Acquisition | 90 |
| Judicial Review | 80 |
| Property Law | 75 |
| Housing Law | 70 |
| Land Law | 65 |
| Administrative Law | 60 |
| Constitutional Law | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Housing
- Real Estate
- Administrative Law
- Civil Procedure