Bauer & Radmacher v Wee: Damages Assessment for Aborted Property Sale
In the General Division of the High Court of Singapore, Mr. Bauer Adam Godfrey and Ms. Radmacher Anne Marielle, the Plaintiffs, sued the estate of the late Mr. Wee Tien Liang, the Defendant, for damages resulting from the Defendant's failure to complete the purchase of a property. The court, presided over by Assistant Registrar Justin Yeo, found the Defendant liable for breach of contract and assessed damages. The court awarded damages to the Plaintiffs, assessed at a net total of $242,112.58 (after taking into consideration the Defendant’s deposit of $260,000).
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Damages awarded to the Plaintiffs, assessed at a net total of $242,112.58 after considering the Defendant’s deposit of $260,000.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Assessment of damages for an aborted property sale. Court awards damages to plaintiffs after defendant's failure to complete the sale.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bauer, Adam Godfrey | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Radmacher, Anne Marielle | Plaintiff | Individual | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | |
| Wee Tien Liang, deceased | Defendant | Individual | Judgment against Defendant | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Justin Yeo | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lawrence Lim | M/s Matthew Chiong Partnership |
4. Facts
- Plaintiffs were joint owners of a landed property in Singapore.
- Plaintiffs issued an Option to Purchase to the Defendant on 1 March 2018.
- The sale price was $5.2 million, with completion by 21 May 2018.
- Defendant paid a total deposit of $260,000.
- Defendant failed to complete the sale, leading to the Abortive Sale.
- Plaintiffs sold the property to another buyer for $4.8 million on 11 January 2019.
- Plaintiffs claimed a net loss of $303,714.71 after considering the deposit.
5. Formal Citations
- Bauer, Adam Godfrey and another v Wee Tien Liang, deceased, Suit No 388 of 2019 (Assessment of Damages No 12 of 2021), [2021] SGHCR 8
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiffs issued an Option to Purchase to the Defendant. | |
| Defendant paid the option exercise fee. | |
| Defendant requested postponement of completion to 6 June 2018. | |
| Defendant requested further postponement of completion to 31 August 2018. | |
| Plaintiffs served the Defendant with a notice to complete the sale within 21 days. | |
| Defendant requested an extension of time to complete the sale by 10 September 2018. | |
| Plaintiffs indicated they would not agree to any variation or extension to complete the sale. | |
| Plaintiffs issued a fresh option to purchase to a new set of buyers. | |
| Successful Sale of the Property was completed. | |
| Plaintiffs brought suit against the Defendant. | |
| Plaintiffs filed an application for summary judgment. | |
| Summary Judgment Application was heard. | |
| AD Trial was fixed. | |
| Hearing of the AD Trial. | |
| AD Trial proceeded. | |
| Judgment issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found the Defendant liable for breach of contract.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to complete sale
- Mitigation of loss
- Mitigation of Loss
- Outcome: The court found that the Plaintiffs had taken reasonable steps to mitigate their losses.
- Category: Substantive
- Procedure for Continuing Action Against Deceased Defendant
- Outcome: The court exercised its inherent powers under O 92 r 4 of the Rules of Court to hear the AD Trial in the absence of the Defendant or his personal representative.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Teo Gim Tiong v Krishnasamy Pushpavathi (legal representative of the estate of Maran s/o Kannakasabai, deceased) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 15 | Singapore | Cited to emphasize that only a personal representative may be substituted for the deceased person under O 15 r 7(2) of the Rules of Court. |
| Wong Moy v Soo Ah Choy | High Court | Yes | [1995] 3 SLR(R) 822 | Singapore | Cited to explain that O 15 r 15(1) was directed at the situation where a deceased person had an interest in an existing court action but was not a party to that action. |
| Yip Holdings Pte Ltd v Asia Link Marine Industries Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 227 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the defaulting party must properly plead and prove that the aggrieved party had failed to fulfil his duty to mitigate loss. |
| The Asia Star | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] 2 SLR 1154 | Singapore | Cited for the principles that the defaulting party bears the burden of proving that the aggrieved party failed in the duty to mitigate, and the appropriate level of judicial scrutiny in assessing whether an aggrieved party’s conduct in mitigation was reasonable. |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1256 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the defaulting party bears the burden of proving that the aggrieved party had failed in the duty to mitigate loss. |
| Banco de Portugal v Waterlow and Sons, Limited | House of Lords | Yes | [1932] AC 452 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that the measures which the sufferer from a breach of contract may be driven to adopt in order to extricate himself ought not to be weighed in nice scales at the instance of the party whose breach of contract has occasioned the difficulty. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 92 r 4 |
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 15 r 6A |
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 15 r 7 |
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 15 r 15 |
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) O 15 r 7(2) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Option to Purchase
- Abortive Sale
- Successful Sale
- Mitigation of Loss
- Liquidated Damages
- Holding Period
- Personal Representative
- Deposit
15.2 Keywords
- property sale
- breach of contract
- damages assessment
- mitigation of loss
- real estate
- singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Assessment of Damages | 85 |
| Damages | 75 |
| Personal representatives | 70 |
| Estate Administration | 70 |
| Wills and Probate | 60 |
| Contract Law | 60 |
| Property Law | 50 |
| Commercial Law | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Dispute
- Property Law
- Damages