Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd v Mannepalli Gayatri Ram: Assessment of Damages for Breach of Property Sale Agreement

In Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd v Mannepalli Gayatri Ram, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an originating summons regarding the assessment of damages following the breach of a sale and purchase agreement (SPA) for a condominium unit. Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd, the plaintiff and vendor, sued Mannepalli Gayatri Ram, the defendant and purchaser, after the defendant failed to complete the purchase. The court had previously declared the SPA validly terminated. See Kee Oon J assessed damages, awarding the plaintiff $720,960.84, covering management fund charges, property tax, legal costs, reinstatement works, costs related to repossession, damages for delayed sale, interest on shareholders’ loan, and unnecessary expenses. The defendant's appeal was based on arguments of remoteness and causation, but the court largely rejected these arguments.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Judgment for Plaintiff

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Assessment of damages for breach of a sale and purchase agreement for a condominium unit. The court awarded $720,960.84 in damages to the plaintiff.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Wingcrown Investment Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Mannepalli Gayatri RamDefendantIndividualDamages assessed against DefendantLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Ng Hui MinDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Mok Zi CongDentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP
Kishan PratapKishan Law Chambers LLC
Jasmine YanKishan Law Chambers LLC

4. Facts

  1. The plaintiff and defendant entered into a sale and purchase agreement for a condominium unit.
  2. The defendant failed to complete the sale and purchase of the property.
  3. The plaintiff terminated the sale and purchase agreement.
  4. The defendant failed to deliver up possession of the property by the stipulated deadline.
  5. The defendant failed to reinstate the property to its original condition.
  6. The plaintiff resold the property to a replacement purchaser at a higher price.
  7. The plaintiff incurred additional interest on shareholders' loans due to the delayed sale.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Wingcrown Investment Pte Ltd v Mannepalli Gayatri Ram, Originating Summons No 1092 of 2021, [2023] SGHC 1

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Option to Purchase issued by the plaintiff to the defendant
Parties entered into the Sale and Purchase Agreement
Defendant took early possession of the Property
Defendant made nine requests for extension of time since April 2020
Scheduled completion date
Plaintiff's solicitors gave notice to the defendant to complete the sale
Sale and Purchase Agreement terminated
Plaintiff notified defendant of SPA termination
Defendant informed that plaintiff would commence legal proceedings
Plaintiff commenced Originating Summons No 1092 of 2021
High Court declared that the SPA was validly terminated
Defendant applied for an extension of time to comply with the order to deliver up possession of the Property
Court granted the application for extension of time
Defendant delivered up possession of the Property to the plaintiff
Plaintiff issued another purchaser an Option to Purchase
AD hearing
Plaintiff’s Written Submissions
Defendant’s Submissions
Completion date of the resale
Defendant’s Reply Submissions
Judgment delivered
Full reasons for decision furnished

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found the defendant liable for breach of contract for failing to complete the sale and purchase agreement and failing to reinstate the property.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to complete sale and purchase agreement
      • Failure to reinstate property
  2. Assessment of Damages
    • Outcome: The court assessed damages based on various heads of claim, including legal costs, reinstatement costs, damages for delayed sale, interest on shareholders' loan, and unnecessary expenses.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Remoteness of damage
      • Causation
      • Mitigation of loss
    • Related Cases:
      • [1974] 1 WLR 798
      • [2018] 2 SLR 655
      • [2008] 2 SLR(R) 623
  3. Indemnity Costs
    • Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff was entitled to indemnity costs based on the contractual provision in the SPA.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] 2 SLR 235
      • [2021] 2 SLR 1091
      • [2015] 1 SLR 496

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Possession of Property

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
CDM and another v CDPHigh CourtYes[2021] 2 SLR 235SingaporeCited by the defendant to argue that the plaintiff had not provided any basis for costs to be awarded on an indemnity basis.
CGG v CGHAppellate Division of the High CourtYes[2021] 2 SLR 1091SingaporeCited by the defendant to support his submission that since the plaintiff did not raise and rely on cl 5A.2.3 during the hearing before Hoo J, the plaintiff should not be allowed to make the contractual claim for indemnity costs.
Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appealsCourt of AppealYes[2015] 1 SLR 496SingaporeApplied the rule that unrecovered costs in prior proceedings could not be the subject of a subsequent claim for damages.
Brown v DaviesQueen's BenchYes[1958] 1 QB 117England and WalesCited for the principle that the burden of establishing fair wear and tear lies on the tenant.
Wrotham Park Estate Co Ltd v Parkside Homes LtdChancery DivisionYes[1974] 1 WLR 798England and WalesCited in relation to the plaintiff's claim for Wrotham Park damages.
Turf Club Auto Emporium Pte Ltd and others v Yeo Boong Hua and others and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2018] 2 SLR 655SingaporeCited for the principle that Wrotham Park damages are a limited and exceptional remedy.
Robertson Quay Investment Pte Ltd v Steen Consultants Pte Ltd and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 623SingaporeCited for the principle that third-party financing of construction costs is inevitable and that parties must be imputed with the knowledge that a delay in completion would give rise to additional financing costs.
Bauer, Adam Godfrey and another v Wee Tien Liang, deceasedSingapore High CourtYes[2021] SGHCR 8SingaporeCited for the principle that a seller can be awarded bank interest on a mortgage loan when a purchaser fails to complete the sale and purchase of a property.
Hadley v BaxendaleCourt of ExchequerYes9 Exch 341England and WalesCited for the well-settled remoteness principle.
Essex v DaniellEnglish Divisional CourtYesLR 10 CP 538England and WalesCited for the principle that a vendor is entitled to recover all expenses incurred in preparing for the sale when the purchaser fails to complete the purchase.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Law Society Conditions of Sale 2012Singapore
COVID-19 (Temporary Measures) Act 2020Singapore
Civil Law Act 1909 (2020 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Sale and Purchase Agreement
  • SPA
  • Completion Date
  • Vacant Possession Date
  • Reinstatement
  • Damages
  • Indemnity Costs
  • Wrotham Park Damages
  • Shareholders' Loan
  • Deposit

15.2 Keywords

  • breach of contract
  • sale and purchase agreement
  • damages
  • property
  • condominium
  • reinstatement
  • legal costs
  • interest
  • Singapore

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Sale and Purchase Agreement90
Damages90
Breach of Contract85
Contract Law80
Property Law75
Assessment of Damages70
Judgments and Orders40
Commercial Leasing30

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Real Estate
  • Damages