Goh Kar Tuck v Koh Samuel: Specific Performance for Property Sale Dispute
In Goh Kar Tuck and Teh Yiok Moi v Samuel Koh, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore granted specific performance to the claimants, ordering the defendant to sell a condominium unit pursuant to an option to purchase. The court found that the defendant breached his obligation under the option by refusing to authorize his lawyers to proceed with the sale. The claimants sought specific performance, and the court ruled in their favor, finding damages to be an inadequate remedy.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Specific performance granted to the claimants.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Specific performance granted to claimants for the sale of a condominium unit after the defendant reneged on the option to purchase. The court found the defendant in breach of contract.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goh Kar Tuck (Wu Jiada) | Claimant | Individual | Specific performance granted | Won | Leslie Yeo Choon Hsien, Jolene Tan |
| Teh Yiok Moi | Claimant | Individual | Specific performance granted | Won | Leslie Yeo Choon Hsien, Jolene Tan |
| Samuel Koh | Defendant | Individual | Specific performance ordered | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Audrey Lim | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leslie Yeo Choon Hsien | Sterling Law Corporation |
| Jolene Tan | Sterling Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Claimants sold their HDB flat and sought a condominium in western Singapore.
- Claimants offered $1.058m for the property, which the defendant accepted.
- Claimants paid the option money of $10,580 to the defendant via PayNow.
- Claimants' lawyers exercised the option, but the defendant's lawyers refused to accept it.
- Defendant claimed he was misled about the property's value and his son's condition made moving difficult.
- Defendant signed the option and linked his NRIC to his bank account to receive payment.
- Defendant was aware of his son's condition before agreeing to sell the property.
5. Formal Citations
- Goh Kar Tuck (alias Wu Jiada) and another v Koh Samuel, Originating Application No 64 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 165
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Claimants made an offer of $1.058m for the property. | |
| Defendant agreed to the offer of $1.058m. | |
| Defendant sent a signed copy of the Option to Lee via WhatsApp. | |
| Claimants transferred the option money of $10,580 to the defendant by PayNow. | |
| Claimants' lawyers delivered the exercised Option to Subra TT Law LLC. | |
| Claimants' lawyers issued a letter of demand to the defendant. | |
| Hearing date. | |
| Judgment date. | |
| Claimants have to deliver vacant possession of their HDB flat. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant breached his obligation under the option to purchase.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to complete sale of property
- Repudiation of option to purchase
- Related Cases:
- [1993] 2 SLR(R) 596
- [2011] SGCA 64
- Specific Performance
- Outcome: The court granted specific performance, ordering the defendant to sell and transfer the property to the claimants.
- Category: Remedial
- Related Cases:
- [2007] 3 SLR(R) 537
- [2011] 2 SLR 232
- [2016] 1 SLR 524
8. Remedies Sought
- Specific Performance
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Real Estate Litigation
- Contract Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tai Joon Lan v Yun Ai Chin and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1993] 2 SLR(R) 596 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party cannot prevent another from exercising an option and then claim the option was not validly exercised. |
| Seng Swee Leng v Wong Chong Weng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 64 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a vendor cannot take advantage of their own breach to question the validity of the exercise of an option. |
| Lee Chee Wei v Tan Hor Peow Victor and others and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 537 | Singapore | Cited for the factors affecting the court's discretion in ordering specific performance. |
| E C Investment Holding Pte Ltd v Ridout Residence Pte Ltd and another (Orion Oil Ltd and another, interveners) | N/A | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 232 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that damages would not be an adequate remedy if the property was bought for personal enjoyment. |
| Lim Beng Cheng v Lim Ngee Sing | N/A | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 524 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that damages would not be an adequate remedy if the property was bought for personal enjoyment. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Option to Purchase
- Specific Performance
- PayNow
- Remainder Sum
- Completion Date
- Property
- Option Money
15.2 Keywords
- Specific Performance
- Breach of Contract
- Property Sale
- Singapore
- Condominium
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Real Estate
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Contract Law
- Real Estate Law
- Specific Performance