Tan Bee Hoon v Quek Hung Heong: Sale of Property, Proprietary Estoppel & Abuse of Process

In Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for the estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and another v Quek Hung Heong and others, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the plaintiffs, the estates of the parents, for the sale of a property at Coronation Road, co-owned by the deceased persons and the surviving parties. The first defendant, Quek Hung Heong, resisted the sale, claiming exclusive possession, proprietary estoppel, and adverse possession. The court found against the first defendant on all grounds and ordered the sale of the property, with proceeds to be divided, taking into account some of the expenditure incurred by the first defendant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' application for sale in lieu of partition granted.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court ordered the sale of a property co-owned by family members, rejecting the defendant's claims of proprietary estoppel and adverse possession.

1.7 Decision Date

30 August 2015

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for the estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased)	Plaintiff	Individual	Application for sale in lieu of partition granted	Won	Lee Hui Min of Harry Elias Partnership LLP Hee Theng Fong of Harry Elias Partnership LLP James Lin of Harry Elias Partnership LLP
Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for the estate of Heng Sai Kee, deceased)	Plaintiff	Individual	Application for sale in lieu of partition granted	Won	Lee Hui Min of Harry Elias Partnership LLP Hee Theng Fong of Harry Elias Partnership LLP James Lin of Harry Elias Partnership LLP
Quek Hung Heong	Defendant	Individual	Application for sale in lieu of partition granted	Lost	Poon Pui Yee of Bernard & Rada Law Corporation Foo Soon Yien of Bernard & Rada Law Corporation
Quek Yang Eng	Defendant	Individual	Neutral	Neutral
Guo Charng Haw (executor for the estate of Kwek Hann Song @ Guo Hann Song, deceased)	Defendant	Individual	Application for sale in lieu of partition granted	Neutral	Johnson Loo Teck Lee of Drew & Napier LLC
Guo Lih Yea (executrix for the estate of Kwek Hann Song @ Guo Hann Song, deceased)	Defendant	Individual	Application for sale in lieu of partition granted	Neutral	Johnson Loo Teck Lee of Drew & Napier LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Aedit Abdullah	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Lee Hui Min	Harry Elias Partnership LLP
Hee Theng Fong	Harry Elias Partnership LLP
James Lin	Harry Elias Partnership LLP
Poon Pui Yee	Bernard & Rada Law Corporation
Foo Soon Yien	Bernard & Rada Law Corporation
Johnson Loo Teck Lee	Drew & Napier LLC

4. Facts

The Quek family purchased the property in 1966 as tenants-in-common.
The registered proprietors were Quek Cher Choi, Heng Sai Kee, Kwek Hann Song, Quek Yang Eng, and Quek Hung Heong.
Quek Cher Choi passed away in 1981, and Heng Sai Kee passed away in 1986.
Kwek Hann Song passed away in 2006.
Quek Hung Heong previously claimed sole beneficial interest in the property, but the claim was dismissed.
The plaintiffs sought a sale of the property in lieu of partition.
Quek Hung Heong resisted the sale, claiming exclusive possession, proprietary estoppel, and adverse possession.

5. Formal Citations

Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for the estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and another v Quek Hung Heong and others, Originating Summons No 744 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 229
Quek Hung Heong v Tan Bee Hoon (executrix for estate of Quek Cher Choi, deceased) and others, S 722, [2014] SGHC 17

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1966-01-01	Quek family purchased the property at Coronation Road.
1981-01-01	Quek Cher Choi passed away.
1986-01-01	Heng Sai Kee passed away.
2006-01-01	Kwek Hann Song passed away.
2014-01-01	Quek Hung Heong launched an action (S 722) claiming the whole beneficial interest in the Property.
2015-08-31	High Court granted the Plaintiffs' application for sale in lieu of partition.

7. Legal Issues

Proprietary Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that the 1st Defendant was precluded from raising proprietary estoppel due to abuse of process and that, even if not barred, proprietary estoppel was not made out on the facts.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Representation
  - Reliance
  - Detriment
  - Acquiescence
- Related Cases:
  - [2009] UKHL 18
  - [2013] 3 SLR 710
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 292
Abuse of Process
- Outcome: The court held that the 1st Defendant's assertion of proprietary estoppel amounted to an abuse of process as it should have been raised in earlier proceedings.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Rule in Henderson v Henderson
  - Collateral Attack on Previous Decision
  - Re-litigation
- Related Cases:
  - [1843-1860] All ER Rep 378
  - [2007] 1 SLR(R) 453
Adverse Possession
- Outcome: The court rejected the 1st Defendant's claim of adverse possession, finding that he did not comply with the requirements of the Land Titles Act.
- Category: Substantive
Promissory Estoppel
- Outcome: The court found that promissory estoppel was not established due to a lack of representation or promise.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Legal Relationship
  - Representation
  - Reliance
  - Inequitable to Revert
Sale in Lieu of Partition
- Outcome: The court ordered a sale in lieu of partition, finding that partition was impractical given the strained relationship between the parties and the physical characteristics of the property.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Impracticability of Partition
  - Injustice to Objecting Co-owners
  - Necessity and Expediency
- Related Cases:
  - [2012] 3 SLR 682
  - [1995] 1 SLR(R) 441

8. Remedies Sought

Order for Sale of Property
Partition of Property

9. Cause of Actions

Application for Sale in Lieu of Partition

10. Practice Areas

Real Estate Litigation
Estate Litigation

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Thorner v Major and others	UKHL	Yes	[2009] UKHL 18	United Kingdom	Cited regarding proprietary estoppel and the discretion of the court in awarding remedies.
Low Heng Leon Andy v Low Kian Beng Lawrence (administrator of the estate of Tan Ah Kng, deceased)	High Court	Yes	[2013] 3 SLR 710	Singapore	Cited regarding the court's discretion in awarding remedies for proprietary estoppel.
Henderson v Henderson	N/A	Yes	[1843-1860] All ER Rep 378	N/A	Cited regarding the rule against abuse of process and the expanded res judicata doctrine.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck and others	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 453	Singapore	Cited regarding the rule in Henderson v Henderson and abuse of process.
Barrow v Bankside Members Agency Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1996] 1 All ER 981	N/A	Cited regarding the rule in Henderson v Henderson.
Hunter v Chief Constable of the West Midlands Police	House of Lords	Yes	[1982] AC 529	United Kingdom	Cited regarding abuse of process.
Kwa Ban Cheong v Kuah Boon Sek	High Court	Yes	[2003] 3 SLR(R) 644	Singapore	Cited regarding abuse of process and re-litigation.
Lai Swee Lin Linda v AG	High Court	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 565	Singapore	Cited regarding abuse of process and matters that should have been raised in earlier proceedings.
Lee Hiok Tng v Lee Hiok Tng	High Court	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR(R) 771	Singapore	Cited regarding consequential matters in relation to abuse of process.
Ng Chee Chong and another v Toh Kouw and another	High Court	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 909	Singapore	Cited regarding consequential matters in relation to abuse of process.
Ching Mun Fong (executrix of the estate of Tan Geok Tee, deceased) v Liu Cho Chit and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR(R) 53	Singapore	Cited regarding new circumstances in relation to abuse of process.
Bradford & Bingley Building Society v Seddon	N/A	Yes	[1999] 1 WLR 1482	England and Wales	Cited regarding impecuniosity or other explanation for initial inaction in relation to abuse of process.
Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd	Privy Council	Yes	[1975] AC 581	N/A	Cited regarding issues that would have readily refuted the initial claim in relation to abuse of process.
Johnson v Gore Wood & Co	House of Lords	Yes	[2002] 2 AC 1	United Kingdom	Cited regarding remarks on what constituted abuse of process.
Talbot v Berkshire County Council	N/A	Yes	[1994] QB 290	England and Wales	Cited regarding issues that would have readily refuted the initial claim in relation to abuse of process.
De Crittenden v Bayliss	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] EWCA Civ 1425	England and Wales	Cited regarding the inability of the court to fully inquire into the matter because the main protagonists had passed away in relation to abuse of process.
Aldi Stores Limited v WSP Group PLC and Ors	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] EWCA Civ 1260	England and Wales	Cited regarding complex commercial litigation in relation to abuse of process.
Booth v Booth	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] EWCA Civ 27	England and Wales	Cited regarding a holistic assessment in relation to abuse of process.
Henley v Bloom	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 WLR 1770	England and Wales	Cited regarding abuse of process where a second action is brought by the party who was the defendant in the earlier action.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR (R) 157	Singapore	Cited regarding the requirements of issue estoppel.
Richards v Richards	N/A	Yes	[1953] P 36	N/A	Cited regarding differences in the facts in relation to issue estoppel.
Mills v Cooper	N/A	Yes	[1967] 2 QB 459	N/A	Cited regarding differences in the facts in relation to issue estoppel.
Chng Bee Kheng and another (executrixes and trustees of the estate of Fock Poh Kum, deceased) v Chng Eng Chye	High Court	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 715	Singapore	Cited regarding estoppel by acquiescence.
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd v United Overseas Bank Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 292	Singapore	Cited regarding the development of the doctrine of proprietary estoppel.
Taylors Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1982] QB 133	England and Wales	Cited regarding the test for reliance in proprietary estoppel.
Steria Ltd v Hutchison	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] EWCA Civ 1551	England and Wales	Cited regarding the test for reliance in proprietary estoppel.
Gillett v Holt	N/A	Yes	[2001] Ch 210	England and Wales	Cited regarding the test for reliance in proprietary estoppel and assessing detriment.
Greasley v Cooke	N/A	Yes	[1980] 3 All ER 710	N/A	Cited regarding the burden of showing reliance in proprietary estoppel.
Sidhu v Van Dyke	High Court of Australia	Yes	[2014] HCA 19	Australia	Cited regarding the burden of showing reliance in proprietary estoppel.
B P Exploration (Libya) v Hunt (No. 2)	N/A	Yes	[1979] 1 WLR 783	N/A	Cited regarding the requirements for promissory estoppel.
Nippon Yusen Kaisha v Pacifica Navegacion SA (The Ion)	N/A	Yes	[1980] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 245	N/A	Cited regarding the requirements for promissory estoppel.
Lam Chi Kin David v Deutsche Bank AG	High Court	Yes	[2011] 1 SLR 800	Singapore	Cited regarding a broader notion of detriment in promissory estoppel.
TSM Development Pte ltd v Leonard Stephanie Celine nee Pereira	High Court	Yes	[2005] 2 SLR(R) 371	Singapore	Cited regarding the aim of the Land Titles Act to abolish adverse possession.
Gibbs v Messer	Privy Council	Yes	[1891] AC 248	N/A	Cited regarding the Torrens system and indefeasibility of registered title.
Wong Kok Chin v Mah Ten Kui Joseph	High Court	Yes	[1992] 1 SLR(R) 894	Singapore	Cited regarding the Torrens system and indefeasibility of registered title.
Tan Yong San v Neo Kok Eng	High Court	Yes	[2011] SGHC 30	Singapore	Cited regarding laches as a defence to a claim for equitable relief.
Toh Tian Sze v Han Kim Wah	High Court	Yes	[2012] 3 SLR 682	Singapore	Cited regarding the power to order a sale even where other co-owners object.
Abdul Razak Valibhoy and another v Abdul Rahim Valibhoy and others	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1995] 1 SLR(R) 441	Singapore	Cited regarding the factors the Court would take into account in ordering a sale.
Chiam Heng Luan and others v Chiam Heng Hsien and others	High Court	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 305	Singapore	Cited regarding the question of injustice and impact on the parties in ordering a sale.
Abu Bakar v Jawahir and others	High Court	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR(R) 865	Singapore	Cited regarding a co-owner's right to seek partition.
Tan Chui Lian v Neo Liew Eng	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR(R) 265	Singapore	Cited regarding expenses incurred which may be necessary to preserve the Property.
Lindsay Petroleum Company, The v Prosper Armstrong Hurd, Abram Farewell, and John Kemp	Privy Council	Yes	[1874] LR 5 PC 221	N/A	Cited regarding laches.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Limitation Act (Cap 163, Rev Ed 1996)	Singapore
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, Rev Ed 2004)	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R5, Rev Ed 2014)	Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322, Rev Ed 2007)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Proprietary Estoppel
Abuse of Process
Adverse Possession
Sale in Lieu of Partition
Tenants-in-Common
Henderson v Henderson
Laches
Partition
Promissory Estoppel

15.2 Keywords

property
sale
proprietary estoppel
adverse possession
abuse of process
partition
Singapore
land
estate

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Property Law	75
Estoppel	65
Adverse Possession	60
Partition	55
Civil Procedure	50
Sale of Land	45
Succession Law	40

16. Subjects

Property Law
Equity
Civil Procedure