Edmund Tie & Company v Savills Residential: Appeal for Commission Dispute over Co-broking Agreement
In a dispute before the High Court of Singapore, Edmund Tie & Company (SEA) Pte Ltd, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against the District Judge’s dismissal of its claim against Savills Residential Pte Ltd, the respondent, for a commission dispute arising from a co-broking agreement. The applicant claimed $13,385.70, representing their share of the commission from the sale of a flat. The court, presided over by Choo Han Teck J, dismissed the application for leave to appeal, citing inadequate pleading and failure to rectify the case.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The applicant's application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal for commission dispute over a co-broking agreement. The court dismissed the appeal, citing inadequate pleading and failure to rectify the case.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Edmund Tie & Company (SEA) Pte Ltd | Applicant | Corporation | Application for leave to appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| Savills Residential Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Application for leave to appeal dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Choo Han Teck | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- A flat was sold for $1,251,000 in 2011.
- Lim Chee Mei from Edmund Tie & Company was the purchaser's agent.
- Fong Kok Hung from Savills Residential was the vendor's agent.
- The vendor paid Fong 2% of the sale price as commission.
- Lim claimed a co-broking agreement entitled her to half of Fong's commission.
- The written co-broking agreement had a disputed clause regarding the commission split.
- The trial judge found in favor of Fong's version of the contract.
5. Formal Citations
- Edmund Tie & Company (SEA) Pte Ltd v Savills Residential Pte Ltd, HC/Originating Summons No 186 of 2018, [2018] SGHC 84
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| A flat in Simei Street 4 was sold for $1,251,000. | |
| Hearing date | |
| Hearing date | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Leave to Appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for leave to appeal.
- Category: Procedural
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court did not rule on the breach of contract claim itself, as the application was for leave to appeal.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No cited cases | |||||
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322 Rule 5) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Co-broking agreement
- Commission
- Leave to appeal
- Statement of claim
- Pleading
- Miscarriage of justice
15.2 Keywords
- Commission dispute
- Co-broking agreement
- Leave to appeal
- Singapore High Court
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Appellate Practice | 60 |
| Co-broking agreement | 60 |
| Breach of Contract | 50 |
| Contract Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Contract Law
- Real Estate