Zhang Run Zi v Ascentsia Law Corp: Breach of Contract, Negligence, Solicitors' Duties

In Suit No 52 of 2013, Zhang Run Zi sued Ascentsia Law Corp in the High Court of Singapore, alleging breach of contractual, tortious, fiduciary, and statutory duties related to the purchase of property at 10 Hoot Kiam Road in 2007. Zhang claimed that Ascentsia Law Corp, her representing law firm, failed to adequately advise her, leading to losses. See Kee Oon J dismissed Zhang’s claim with costs, finding no breach of duty by the defendant.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claim dismissed with costs

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Zhang Run Zi sues Ascentsia Law Corp for breach of contract and negligence in a property purchase. The court dismissed Zhang's claim, finding no breach of duty.

1.7 Decision Date

16 August 2018

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Zhang Run Zi	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost
Ascentsia Law Corp	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Alfonso Ang Cheng Ann, Cheah Shu Xian

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
See Kee Oon	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Alfonso Ang Cheng Ann	A. Ang, Seah & Hoe
Cheah Shu Xian	A. Ang, Seah & Hoe

4. Facts

Zhang engaged Ascentsia Law Corp to represent her in the purchase of a property.
Zhang signed an Option to Purchase before engaging Ascentsia Law Corp.
Leong, a solicitor with Ascentsia Law Corp, advised Zhang on the OTP.
Zhang conducted some property searches herself.
The property was affected by road reserve lines.
Zhang was informed about the road reserve issue.
Zhang did not complete the purchase of the property.

5. Formal Citations

Zhang Run Zi v Ascentsia Law Corp, Suit No 52 of 2013, [2018] SGHC 183

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2007-01-03	Zhang met the vendors and was shown the Option to Purchase
2007-01-05	Zhang met Leong to discuss her divorce matter and the OTP
2007-01-07	Zhang conducted searches on the Property with CrimsonLogic
2007-01-22	Zhang returned to Singapore
2007-01-23	Zhang went to the URA to verify the blurry document
2007-01-24	Zhang met Leong and asked him to exercise the OTP
2007-01-25	Leong sent a letter to Zhang confirming that the OTP was exercised
2007-01-25	Leong applied for the outstanding searches on the Property
2007-02-01	Leong sent a letter to Zhang stating that the Property had been earmarked as ‘Land Required as Road Reserve’
2007-02-01	Leong called Zhang to inform her of the problem with the Property
2007-02-09	Zhang sent a termination letter to the Vendors
2007-02-14	Government announced that affected owners of compulsorily acquired properties would be compensated
2007-02-15	Leong helped Zhang to translate another letter she had written with the intent to send to the Vendors
2007-02-21	Vendors’ solicitors sent another letter to Zhang directly
2007-02-22	Leong forwarded the same letter to Zhang
2007-02-26	Vendors’ solicitors sent another letter to Zhang
2007-02-27	Leong forwarded this letter to Zhang
2007-03-05	Vendors’ solicitors sent the Defendant the completion account for the Property
2007-03-11	Leong forwarded this letter to Zhang
2007-03-15	Vendors’ solicitors sent the Defendant the modes of payment for completion
2007-03-16	Leong replied the Vendors’ solicitors stating that the Defendant had no instructions from Zhang
2007-03-17	Leong sent the original OTP back to the Vendors’ solicitors
2007-03-19	Leong called Zhang to explain that the original OTP had been returned
2007-03-26	Vendors’ solicitors sent the requisite 21 days’ notice to complete
2007-04-16	Zhang did not complete the purchase
2007-06-21	Zhang sought Leong’s help to draft a letter in English for a meeting with the Vendors
2007-06-25	Leong sent her the English draft
2007-07-05	Defendant received a letter from the Vendors’ solicitors demanding that Zhang withdraw her caveat on the Property
2007-07-05	Leong forwarded the letter to Zhang
2007-07-19	Leong sent Zhang another letter explaining that since she had not completed the transaction on 21 March 2007, the Vendors were entitled to re-sell the Property after giving her 21 days’ notice
2007-08-27	Singapore Land Authority sent Zhang a letter notifying her of the Vendors’ application to cancel her caveat on the Property
2007-11-06	Vendors commenced Originating Summons No 1639 of 2007 against Zhang
2007-11-29	Court granted the relief sought by the Vendors
2007-12-04	Zhang lodged another caveat on the Property
2008-01-02	Vendors took up OS No 2 of 2008 to expunge the Second Caveat
2008-01-10	Court ordered Zhang to expunge this caveat
2008-01-01	Hearing of OS No 1639 of 2007 proceeded
2008-01-01	Zhang brought a suit in Magistrate’s Court Suit No 2619 of 2008 against the Vendors
2013-01-01	Zhang commenced Suit No 2 of 2013 against the Vendors
2013-01-21	Zhang commenced the present suit
2013-09-23	Appeal was dismissed
2018-03-20	Trial took place
2018-05-17	Trial took place
2018-08-17	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found no breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
Negligence
- Outcome: The court found no negligence on the part of the defendant.
- Category: Substantive
Solicitor's Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant met the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent and diligent conveyancing solicitor.
- Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Contract
Negligence
Breach of Fiduciary Duty
Breach of Statutory Duty

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Legal Services
Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 4 SLR(R) 100	Singapore	Cited to determine the existence of a duty of care.
Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties)	High Court	Yes	[2014] SGHC 159	Singapore	Cited for the standard of care expected of a reasonably competent and diligent conveyancing solicitor.
Yeo Yoke Mui v Ng Liang Poh	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 701	Singapore	Cited for the ambit of a solicitor’s duty depending on the retainer and the particular circumstances of the case.
Koh Kim Seng and another v Zhang Run-Zi	High Court	Yes	[2013] SGHC 79	Singapore	Cited for related litigation history.
Zhang Run Zi v Koh Kim Seng and another	High Court	Yes	[2015] SGHC 175	Singapore	Cited for related litigation history.
Law Society of Singapore v Lau See Jin Jeffrey	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2017] 4 SLR 148	Singapore	Cited for adverse inference against the Defendant.
Law Society of Singapore v Tan Phuay Khiang	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2007] 3 SLR(R) 477	Singapore	Cited for the lack of contemporaneous notes did not ipso facto deprive a solicitor’s testimony of all credibility
Lie Hendri Rusli v Wong Tan & Molly Lim (a firm)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR(R) 594	Singapore	Cited for Solicitors should be mindful of the importance of keeping accurate and contemporaneous attendance notes, and exercise prudence in confirming advice and clarifying instructions in writing.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Land Acquisition (Amendment) Act 2007 (No 19 of 2007)	Singapore
Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules	Singapore
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Option to Purchase
Road Reserve
Completion Date
Caveat
Solicitor's Duty of Care
Land Acquisition
Property Transaction

15.2 Keywords

breach of contract
negligence
solicitor
property
singapore
road reserve
conveyancing

16. Subjects

Contract Law
Real Estate Law
Professional Negligence

17. Areas of Law

Contract Law
Tort Law
Solicitors’ duties
Civil Procedure