Anil Singh Gurm v J.S. Yeh & Co: Negligence Claim in Property Purchase
In Anil Singh Gurm v J.S. Yeh & Co, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Anil Singh Gurm's negligence claim against J.S. Yeh & Co and Yasmin Binte Abdullah, related to advice given during Gurm's purchase of a residential property on behalf of his cousin, Tejinder Singh Sekhon, a breach of the Residential Property Act. The court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, found that the defendants did not breach their duty of care and that Gurm knowingly entered into an illegal nominee arrangement. The claim for indemnity, legal costs, and loss of income was dismissed on 22 July 2020.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Claim Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore court dismisses negligence claim against law firm for property purchase advice, highlighting illegality of nominee arrangement under Residential Property Act.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anil Singh Gurm | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | |
| J.S. Yeh & Co | Defendant | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | |
| Yasmin Binte Abdullah | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Plaintiff purchased property intending to hold it on trust for his Australian cousin.
- The nominee purchase arrangement breached s 23 of the Residential Property Act.
- Plaintiff claimed the law firm was negligent in advising him on the purchase.
- Tejinder Singh Sekhon's application for PR status was rejected.
- The Warrant to Act signed by the plaintiff stated the purchase was 'for own occupation'.
- CAD commenced investigations against the plaintiff in relation to the property purchase.
- Plaintiff was charged with an offence under s 23 of the RPA.
5. Formal Citations
- Anil Singh Gurm v J S Yeh & Co and another, Suit No 580 of 2016, [2020] SGHC 151
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| First Option to Purchase granted to Tejinder Singh Sekhon | |
| Tejinder Singh Sekhon exercised the First Option | |
| Immigration and Checkpoints Authority rejected Tejinder Singh Sekhon's application for PR status | |
| Yasmin Binte Abdullah joined J.S. Yeh & Co | |
| Quah Kwee Suan Irene called Tejinder Singh Sekhon to inform him of the rejection of his PR application | |
| J.S. Yeh & Co issued a letter to the Vendors’ solicitors confirming Tejinder’s failure to obtain PR status | |
| Anil Singh Gurm and Tejinder Singh Sekhon signed the Warrant to Act and the Second Option | |
| Standard Chartered Bank issued a facility letter to Anil Singh Gurm and Tejinder Singh Sekhon | |
| Anil Singh Gurm and Tejinder Singh Sekhon signed the Facility Letter at J.S. Yeh & Co | |
| Completion of the sale and purchase of the Property | |
| Tejinder Singh Sekhon decided to sell the Property | |
| Commercial Affairs Department of the Singapore Police Force commenced investigations against Anil Singh Gurm | |
| Anil Singh Gurm was charged with an offence under s 23 of the Residential Property Act | |
| Anil Singh Gurm commenced action against J.S. Yeh & Co and Yasmin Binte Abdullah | |
| Trial began | |
| Trial continued | |
| Trial concluded | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Duty of Care
- Outcome: The court found that the defendants did not breach their duty of care to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to advise on consequences of nominee arrangement
- Insufficient advice regarding illegality of arrangement
- Illegality
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff's claim was barred by the doctrine of illegality.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Indemnity for fines and legal costs
- Loss of income and earnings
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Negligence Claims
- Property Transactions
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 for the legal prerequisites for establishing a duty of care. |
| Lie Hendri Rusli v Wong Tan & Molly Lim (a firm) | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 594 | Singapore | Cited regarding the importance of maintaining attendance notes by legal practitioners and the inferences that can be drawn from their absence. |
| Anwar Patrick Adrian and another v Ng Chong & Hue LLC and another | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 761 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a reasonably competent solicitor must draw his client’s attention “to any pitfall”. |
| Abu-Mahmoud v Consolidated Lawyers Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | [2015] NSWSC 547 | Australia | Cited regarding the duty of solicitors to warn clients of the legal consequences of their actions. |
| United Project Consultants Pte Ltd v Leong Kwok Onn (trading as Leong Kwok Onn & Co) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 214 | Singapore | Cited regarding the duty of a professional to make necessary inquiries and warn relevant persons in charge of management or accounts of the company. |
| Bachoo Mohan Singh v Public Prosecutor and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2010] 4 SLR 137 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no general duty upon a solicitor to enquire in every case whether his client is telling the truth. |
| Various Claimants v Giambrone & Law (A Firm) and others | High Court of Justice | Yes | [2015] EWHC 1946 (QB) | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that a solicitor has to be “very diligent” when he or she is acting in a transaction where “red flags… were popping up”. |
| AEL and others v Cheo Yeoh & Associates LLC and another | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1231 | Singapore | Cited regarding a solicitor's duty of care to the beneficiaries of a will. |
| Wai Wing Properties Pte Ltd v Lim, Ganesh & Liu (a firm) | High Court | Yes | [1994] 1 SLR(R) 1004 | Singapore | Cited regarding a solicitor's failure to respond to statutory notices. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Chwee Wan Allan | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 699 | Singapore | Cited regarding the duty to supervise conduct of a transaction. |
| Chu Said Thong and another v Vision Law LLC | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 375 | Singapore | Cited regarding the duty to supervise conduct of a transaction. |
| ANC Holdings Pte Ltd v Bina Puri Holdings Bhd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 666 | Singapore | Cited for the application of the defence of illegality to tort law. |
| Holman v Johnson | King's Bench | Yes | (1775) 1 Cowp 341 | England | Cited for the ex turpi causa doctrine. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Residential Property Act (Cap 274, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Nominee Arrangement
- Residential Property Act
- Duty of Care
- Illegality
- Breach of Duty
- Conveyancing
- Ex turpi causa
- Landed residential property
- Foreign person
- Legal and beneficial owner
15.2 Keywords
- Negligence
- Property Purchase
- Residential Property Act
- Nominee Arrangement
- Duty of Care
- Illegality
- Singapore
- Law Firm
- Conveyancing
17. Areas of Law
16. Subjects
- Negligence
- Property Law
- Conveyancing
- Civil Litigation