EA Apartments Pte Ltd v Tan Bek: Misrepresentation & Breach of Duty in Tenancy Agreement
EA Apartments Pte Ltd sued Tan Bek, Lew Chen Chen, Lew Kay Tiong, Lew Keh Lam, and Chambers Law LLP in the High Court of Singapore, alleging misrepresentation and breach of duty in relation to a tenancy agreement. The plaintiff claimed the defendants misrepresented the suitability of the premises for use as a dormitory and that the lawyers breached their duty of care in preparing the agreement. The court dismissed the appeal and disallowed the amendment application, finding that the statement of claim disclosed no reasonable cause of action.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal dismissed and amendment application disallowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
EA Apartments sued Tan Bek for misrepresentation and breach of duty related to a tenancy agreement. The court struck out the claim, finding no reasonable cause of action.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EA Apartments Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Tan Bek | Defendant | Individual | Judgment in favor of Defendant | Won | |
| Lew Chen Chen | Defendant | Individual | Judgment in favor of Defendant | Won | |
| Lew Kay Tiong | Defendant | Individual | Judgment in favor of Defendant | Won | |
| Lew Keh Lam | Defendant | Individual | Judgment in favor of Defendant | Won | |
| Chambers Law LLP | Defendant | Limited Liability Partnership | Judgment in favor of Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Hoo Sheau Peng | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- EA Apartments Pte Ltd entered into a tenancy agreement to lease premises owned by Tan Bek and Lew Chen Chen.
- The plaintiff intended to use the premises as a dormitory.
- The plaintiff alleged that the defendants concealed Fire Safety Notices from them.
- The Fire Safety Notices indicated that the premises had been converted to a dormitory without official approval.
- The tenancy agreement contained an 'as is, where is' clause.
- The plaintiff claimed that Ms. Lew and Chambers Law, as solicitors, had acted in a position of conflict and neglected to exercise reasonable skill, diligence and care.
- The plaintiff sought reinstatement of the tenancy agreement or, alternatively, return of the deposit and damages.
5. Formal Citations
- EA Apartments Pte Ltd v Tan Bek and others, Suit No 67 of 2016(Registrar’s Appeal No 153 of 2016; Summons No 2465 of 2016), [2016] SGHC 268
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Negotiations began for leasing the premises as a dormitory. | |
| Tenancy agreement signed. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Decision issued; further arguments requested. | |
| Further arguments heard. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead an actionable representation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Concealment of information
- Suppression of material facts
- Inducement to enter into a contract
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to plead facts that could give rise to a duty of care between the plaintiff and the defendant lawyers.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Solicitor-client relationship
- Negligence
- Conflict of interest
- Striking Out Pleadings
- Outcome: The court upheld the decision to strike out the statement of claim.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- No reasonable cause of action
- Vexatious pleadings
- Abuse of process
8. Remedies Sought
- Reinstatement of tenancy agreement
- Return of deposit
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of Duty of Care
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Legal Services
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wright Norman and another v Oversea-Chinese Banking Corp Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 640 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that amendment of pleadings should be allowed so long as it would allow the real issues between the parties to be ventilated and would not result in injustice. |
| The “Eishin Maru” | High Court | Yes | [1988] 1 SLR(R) 83 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that striking out should only be ordered when no possible amendment of a pleading would cure its defects. |
| Trans-World (Aluminium) Ltd v Cornelder China (Singapore) | High Court | Yes | [2003] 3 SLR(R) 501 | Singapore | Cited regarding silence as actionable misrepresentation. |
| Ajit Chandrasekar Prabhu and another v Yap Beng Kooi and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] SGHC 280 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of 'as is, where is' clauses. |
| Chip Hup Hup Kee Construction Pte Ltd v Tng Peck Guek | Singapore District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 351 | Singapore | Cited regarding the interpretation of 'as is, where is' clauses. |
| Gabriel Peter & Partners (suing as a firm) v Wee Chong Jin and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR(R) 649 | Singapore | Cited regarding the test for striking out a pleading for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. |
| Drummond-Jackson v British Medical Association | Unknown | Yes | [1970] 1 All ER 1094 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the test for striking out a pleading for disclosing no reasonable cause of action. |
| Recordtv Pte Ltd v MediaCorp TV Singapore Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 43 | Singapore | Cited regarding striking out a statement of claim which omits material facts. |
| Review Publishing Co Ltd v Lee Hsien Loong | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 52 | Singapore | Cited regarding amendment of pleadings. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited for the elements of the tort of deceit. |
| Kim Hok Yung and others v Cooperative Centrale Raiffeisen-Boerenleenbank BA (trading as Rabobank) (Lee Mon Sun, third party) | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 455 | Singapore | Cited regarding the requirement to plead essential elements of misrepresentation. |
| Schneider v Heath | Unknown | Yes | (1813) 3 Camp 506 | England and Wales | Cited as an example of wilful suppression. |
| Gordon v Selico Ltd | Chancery Division | Yes | (1985) 275 EG 841 (Ch D) | England and Wales | Cited as an example of wilful suppression. |
| Smith v Hughes | Queen's Bench | Yes | (1871) LR 6 QB 597 | England and Wales | Cited regarding passively acquiescing in another’s self-deception. |
| Arkwright v Newbold | Unknown | Yes | (1881) 17 Ch D 301 | England and Wales | Cited regarding passively acquiescing in another’s self-deception. |
| Wishing Star Ltd v Jurong Town Corp | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 909 | Singapore | Cited regarding the measure of damages in a claim for misrepresentation. |
| Ketteman and others v Hansel Properties Ltd and others | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 189 | England and Wales | Cited regarding the court's power to prevent abuses of process. |
| Ng Chee Weng v Lim Jit Ming Bryan and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 1 SLR 457 | Singapore | Cited regarding the court's power to prevent abuses of process. |
| Shi Wen Yue v Shi Minjiu and another | High Court | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 911 | Singapore | Cited regarding material facts that will put the defendants on their guard and tell them what case they have to meet. |
| Bruce v Odhams Press, Limited | Unknown | Yes | [1936] 1 KB 697 | England and Wales | Cited regarding material facts that are necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action. |
| Multi-Pak Singapore Pte Ltd (in receivership) v Intraco Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [1992] 2 SLR(R) 382 | Singapore | Cited regarding material facts that are necessary for the purpose of formulating a complete cause of action. |
| Phillips v Phillips and others | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | (1878) 4 QBD 127 | England and Wales | Cited regarding material facts that will put the defendants on their guard and tell them what case they have to meet. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (Cap 61, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Tenancy agreement
- Misrepresentation
- Breach of duty
- Dormitory
- Fire Safety Notices
- As is, where is
- Statement of claim
- Amendment
- Striking out
- Solicitor-client relationship
15.2 Keywords
- tenancy agreement
- misrepresentation
- breach of duty
- striking out
- amendment
- dormitory
- EA Apartments
- Tan Bek
- Chambers Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Misrepresentation | 80 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 70 |
| Pleadings | 65 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Litigation | 40 |
| Property Law | 30 |
| Corporate Law | 20 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Tort Law
- Contract Law
- Real Estate Law