Peh Kah Chan v Tan Chong Realty: Proprietary Estoppel & Land Title Dispute

1. Case Overview

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

4. Counsels

4. Facts

1. In 1958, Peh Kah Chan and Ng Miene purchased two shophouses, Nos 820 and 822 Upper Bukit Timah Road.
2. Peh Kah Chan claimed Ho Hoo Koon assured him the purchase included the frontage and backyard of No 820.
3. The sale and purchase agreement stated the consideration was $20,400, but Peh Kah Chan claimed he paid $17,000.
4. Ho and Loh had purchased the two shophouses along with eight others from Nanyang Manufacturing Company Limited earlier that year.
5. Lot 198 was brought under the Land Titles Ordinance in August 1981.
6. Nanyang went into liquidation, and its liquidators sold the land to Teck Hock Land Pte Ltd in 1981.
7. Teck Hock mortgaged the land to Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation Limited and defaulted, leading to a mortgagee sale to Tan Chong Realty in 1989.
8. Peh Kah Chan filed multiple caveats between 1987 and 2001, initially claiming interest by virtue of the sale and purchase agreement and deed of assignment.
9. In 1991, Peh Kah Chan filed a caveat claiming interest based on undisturbed possession for over twelve years.
10. The subdivision of Lot 198 was completed in 2008, with separate Certificates of Title issued for the two shophouses.
11. Peh Kah Chan first claimed the backyard in 2012 and the frontage in 2014.

5. Formal Citations

1. Peh Kah Chan v Tan Chong Realty (Pte) Ltd, Originating Summons No 872 of 2014, [2016] SGHC 135

6. Timeline

7. Legal Issues

1. Proprietary Estoppel
   • Outcome: The court found that the defendant was not guilty of any fraud and that the plaintiff had no privity of contract with the defendant to enforce any representations allegedly made by the defendant's predecessor in title. The court held that the principles of proprietary estoppel did not apply.
   • Category: Substantive
   • Related Cases:
     • [1953] 1 Ch 43
2. Indefeasibility of Title
   • Outcome: The court held that the defendant, as a registered proprietor, held the land free from all encumbrances, liens, estates, and interests except such as may be registered or notified in the land-register, and that the plaintiff's claim did not fall within any exceptions to the principle of indefeasibility.
   • Category: Substantive
   • Related Cases:
     • [1992] 1 SLR (R) 894
     • [1891] AC 248
3. Constructive Trust
   • Outcome: The court found that the defendant had already discharged its duty as a trustee by assisting the plaintiff in 2008 to obtain subdivision for the two shophouses and that there was no unconscionable conduct on the part of the defendant that would call for the imposition of a constructive trust.
   • Category: Substantive
   • Related Cases:
     • [1953] 1 Ch 43
4. Adverse Possession
   • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had missed the opportunity to apply for adverse possession of the frontage and backyard of the two shophouses and that this was not caused by the defendant.
   • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

1. Declaration of Ownership
2. Equitable Ownership
3. Correction of Subdivision

9. Cause of Actions

• Breach of Contract
• Proprietary Estoppel
• Constructive Trust

10. Practice Areas

• Real Estate Law
• Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

• Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

13. Applicable Rules

14. Applicable Statutes

15. Key Terms and Keywords

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

• Land Dispute
• Property Law
• Equity