Rosemawati Binti Rafdi v Buang Bin Ani: Application to Vary Consent Judgment on HDB Flat Sale
In Rosemawati Binti Rafdi v Buang Bin Ani, the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the plaintiff, Rosemawati Binti Rafdi, to vary a consent judgment entered into with the defendants, Buang Bin Ani, Salbiah Binti Othman, and Rashidah Binte Buang, regarding the sale and purchase of a Housing and Development Board (HDB) flat. The court dismissed the application, finding that the consent judgment represented a real contract between the parties and that the proposed variations were not justified. The court also noted that the original agreement was likely in breach of the Housing and Development Act.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the defendants.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Application to vary a consent judgment regarding the sale of an HDB flat was dismissed due to non-compliance with HDB regulations.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rosemawati Binti Rafdi | Plaintiff | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost | Lee Ming Hui |
| Buang Bin Ani | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Won | Kishan Pratap |
| Salbiah Binti Othman | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Won | Kishan Pratap |
| Rashidah Binte Buang | Defendant | Individual | Application dismissed | Won | Rajan Nair |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Audrey Lim | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lee Ming Hui | WNLEX LLC |
| Kishan Pratap | Ho Wong Law Practice LLC |
| Rajan Nair | Rajan Nair & Partners |
4. Facts
- The defendants are the joint owners of a Housing and Development Board flat.
- The plaintiff and the first and second defendants agreed to sell the flat to the plaintiff for $300,000.
- The plaintiff moved into the flat in January 2001 and made payments towards the housing loan instalments.
- The first and second defendants did not effect the sale of the flat and demanded that the plaintiff vacate the flat in 2012.
- The parties reached a settlement in respect of the Suit and recorded the Consent Judgment on 19 April 2013.
- The HDB rejected the application for the sale and purchase of the Flat as the defendants had not fulfilled the minimum occupation period.
- The plaintiff filed SUM 4955 to set aside the Consent Judgment and to have it replaced with new orders.
5. Formal Citations
- Rosemawati bte Rafdi v Buang bin Ani and others, Suit No 858 of 2012, [2016] SGHC 223
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendants obtained possession of the Flat from the Housing and Development Board | |
| Third defendant moved out of the Flat upon her marriage | |
| First and second defendants agreed to sell the Flat to the plaintiff | |
| Plaintiff moved into the Flat with her family | |
| First and second defendants demanded that the plaintiff vacate the Flat | |
| Parties reached a settlement and recorded the Consent Judgment | |
| Plaintiff's solicitors applied to the HDB for the Flat to be transferred to the plaintiff | |
| HDB stated that under the prevailing policy the transfer of an HDB flat referred to a change of ownership between family members and without monetary consideration | |
| Plaintiff submitted an option to purchase the Flat for $240,000 | |
| HDB rejected the application for the sale and purchase of the Flat | |
| Plaintiff vacated the Flat | |
| First and second defendants resumed occupation of the Flat | |
| Plaintiff filed SUM 4955 to set aside the Consent Judgment | |
| Plaintiff filed SUM 2169 for leave to amend prayer (1) of SUM 4955 | |
| Hearing of the applications | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Variation of Consent Judgment
- Outcome: The court held that the consent judgment represented a real contract between the parties and declined to vary it.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1982] 1 WLR 185
- [2001] L & TR 5
- [2001] L & TR 10
- [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1079
- [2008] 4 SLR(R) 245
- [2001] 2 SLR(R) 821
- [2014] 2 SLR 693
- [2013] 1 SLR 924
- Breach of Housing and Development Act
- Outcome: The court noted that the original agreement was likely in breach of the Housing and Development Act.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Specific Performance of the agreement
- Return of $238,352.60
9. Cause of Actions
- Specific Performance
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siebe Gorman & Co Ltd v Pneupac Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1982] 1 WLR 185 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a consent order representing a real contract can only be interfered with on the same grounds as any other contract. |
| Fivecourts Ltd v JR Leisure Development Co Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2001] L & TR 5 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the court should place great weight on the agreement and should be slow to depart from it when considering an application to extend time. |
| Ropac Ltd v Inntrepreneur Pub Co (CPC) Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2001] L & TR 10 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the court should place great weight on the agreement and should be slow to depart from it when considering an application to extend time. |
| CSR South East Asia Pte Ltd v Sunrise Insulation Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 1079 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the court should place great weight on the agreement and should be slow to depart from it when considering an application to extend time. |
| Yeo Boong Hua v Turf City Pte Ltd and others and another suit | N/A | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 245 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the court should place great weight on the agreement and should be slow to depart from it when considering an application to extend time. |
| Wee Soon Kim Anthony v Law Society of Singapore | N/A | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 821 | N/A | Cited for the principle that the court's inherent power to vary or amend a consent judgment under O 92 r 4 had to be exercised judiciously where it was necessary to do justice between the parties. |
| Airtrust (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Kao Chai-Chau Linda | N/A | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 693 | N/A | Cited for the principle that in a contractual consent order, the court retains a residual discretion to vary its terms where this is necessary to prevent injustice. |
| AYM v AYL | N/A | Yes | [2013] 1 SLR 924 | N/A | Cited in relation to matrimonial proceedings orders which allowed the court to invoke its powers to vary an order that was substantively unworkable ab initio because of a fundamental misunderstanding at the time the order was made, but found not to apply. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 45 r 6(1) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) |
| O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court |
| O 3 r 4 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Housing and Development Act (Cap 129, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| section 49A of the HDB Act | Singapore |
| section 50 of the HDB Act | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap. 322) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Consent Judgment
- Housing and Development Board (HDB)
- Minimum Occupation Period (MOP)
- HDB Flat
- Transfer of Property
15.2 Keywords
- Consent Judgment
- HDB Flat
- Minimum Occupation Period
- Sale of Property
- Housing and Development Act
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Housing Law
- Contract Law
- Consent Orders
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Housing Law
- Contract Law