Yeo Chock Min v Goh Ann Chuan: Misrepresentation & Contractual Terms in Property Sale

In Yeo Chock Min and Tiang Weileen v Goh Ann Chuan and Angeline Lim Cheng Cheng, the Singapore High Court dismissed the plaintiffs' claim for misrepresentation and breach of contract. The plaintiffs, Mr. Yeo and Ms. Tiang, alleged that the defendants, Mr. Goh and Ms. Lim, misrepresented the land area of a property they purchased. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to prove misrepresentation or breach of contract, as the advertised property size included a drain, and the plaintiffs did not clarify the issue before completing the purchase. The court dismissed the action with costs.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Action dismissed with costs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case involving Yeo Chock Min and Tiang Weileen's claim against Goh Ann Chuan and Angeline Lim Cheng Cheng for misrepresentation and breach of contract in a property sale.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Choo Han TeckJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Purchasers sought damages for misrepresentation and breach of contract regarding property size.
  2. The property was advertised as 2,775 sqft, including a drain outside the back boundary wall.
  3. Purchasers claimed they believed the property within the back boundary wall was 2,775 sqft.
  4. The survey plan showed the property area included the drain.
  5. The option to purchase did not specify that the property excludes the drain area.
  6. A reply from the Public Utilities Board indicated a common drain within the property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Yeo Chock Min and another v Goh Ann Chuan and another, Suit 829 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 51

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Purchasers started looking for a new home.
Estate agent informed purchasers about a corner terrace house for sale.
Purchasers first visited the property.
Purchasers visited the property.
Purchasers visited the property.
Purchasers instructed solicitors to exercise the option to purchase.
Public Utilities Board replied to conveyancing solicitors regarding drainage.
Completion of the property purchase took place.
Vendors moved out of the house.
Purchasers engaged JDB Design & Build Pte Ltd to renovate the house.
Contractors engaged a surveyor who drew a topographical survey plan.
Purchasers discovered the drain outside the back boundary wall.
Purchasers instructed their solicitors to sue the vendors.
Hearing date.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that the purchasers failed to prove that the vendors made any false representation of fact.
    • Category: Substantive
  2. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no express or implied term in the contract that the property did not include the drain area.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Misrepresentation Act (Cap 390, 1994 Rev Ed)Singapore
Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract
  • Land Area
  • Property
  • Drain
  • Option to Purchase
  • Requisitions

15.2 Keywords

  • Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract
  • Property
  • Singapore
  • Contract Law

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law90
Misrepresentation85
Real Estate50

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Real Estate
  • Misrepresentation