Lam Wing Yee Jane v Realstar Premier: Negligent Misrepresentation in Property Redevelopment

In Lam Wing Yee Jane v Realstar Premier Group Private Limited, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the claimant's claim against the defendant for negligent misrepresentation. The claimant alleged that the defendant's agent misrepresented the redevelopment potential of a property. The court found that the agent did not make any implied representation and did not breach his duty of care.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Claim dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Property buyer sues agent for misrepresentation regarding redevelopment potential. Court dismisses claim, finding no negligent misrepresentation by agent.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lam Wing Yee JaneClaimantIndividualClaim DismissedLost
Realstar Premier Group Private LimitedDefendantCorporationJudgment for DefendantWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Lai Siu ChiuSenior JudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Looi Ming MingEldan Law LLP
Shen LinEldan Law LLP
Lin Hui YinWithers KhattarWong LLP
SharonWithers KhattarWong LLP
Zephan Chua Wei EnWithers KhattarWong LLP

4. Facts

  1. Claimant purchased property known as 12 Lewis Road, Singapore.
  2. Defendant is a real estate agency company.
  3. Mr. Teo is a real estate salesperson with the defendant.
  4. Mr. Teo sent GCB listings to Mr. Lam between July and December 2021.
  5. Mr. Teo sent a WhatsApp message to Mr. Lam that the Property at 12 Lewis Road was for sale.
  6. Claimant alleges Mr. Teo represented the entire land area could be redeveloped.
  7. Claimant made an offer to purchase the Property for S$18,680,000.
  8. Claimant discovered a drainage reserve of 25.9m2 on the Property.
  9. Claimant alleges she relied on the misrepresentation to purchase the property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lam Wing Yee Jane v Realstar Premier Group Pte Ltd, Originating Claim No 77 of 2022, [2023] SGHC 344

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Defendant placed advertisement in the Business Times
Mr. Teo introduced to Mr. Lam
Mr. Teo sent WhatsApp message to Mr. Lam regarding the property
Claimant and Mr. Lam viewed the external compound of the Property
Claimant made an offer to purchase the Property and paid for an option to purchase
Option to purchase issued to the claimant
Claimant exercised the option to purchase
Lams discovered drainage reserve via email from solicitors
Lams observed the presence of the drainage reserve
Originating Claim No 77 of 2022 filed
Judgment reserved

7. Legal Issues

  1. Negligent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant's agent did not make a negligent misrepresentation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • False representation of fact
      • Inducement of reliance
      • Duty of care
      • Breach of duty of care
      • Causation of damage
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] SGHC 84
  2. Vicarious Liability
    • Outcome: The court did not rule on the issue of vicarious liability as it found that the agent did not make a negligent misrepresentation.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Negligent Misrepresentation

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Wee Chiaw Sek Anna v Ng Li-Ann Genevieve (sole executrix of the estate of Ng Hock Seng, deceased) and anotherHigh CourtYes[2013] 3 SLR 801SingaporeCited for the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation.
Davy v GarrettN/AYes(1878) 7 Ch.D. 473N/ACited for the principle that it is not necessary to use the word “fraud” in the claim if it is sufficiently clear and unambiguous that fraud is alleged.
Ma Hongjin v Sim Eng TongHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 84SingaporeCited for the elements required to succeed in a claim for negligent misrepresentation.
Wang Xiaopu v Goh Seng Heng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2019] SGHC 284SingaporeCited for the objective approach to interpreting a particular statement.
Thode Gerd Walter v Mintwell Industry Pte Ltd and OthersHigh CourtYes[2009] SGHC 44SingaporeCited for the principle that the essential issue is whether in “all the circumstances” it has been impliedly represented that there exists some state of facts different from the truth.
Bisset v WilkinsonPrivy CouncilNo(1927) AC 177N/ACited for the principle that a vendor's statement about land is not always a statement of fact.
Brown v RaphaelN/AYes[1958] Ch. 636N/ACited for the principle that it suffices for the application of the principle if it appears that between the two parties, one is better equipped with information or the means of information than the other.
Smith v Land and House Property CorpN/AYes(1882) 28 Ch.D. 7N/ACited for the principle that if the representee has significantly less information than the representor about facts or other circumstances which are relevant to the statement expressed, it is more likely that he will be held entitled to rely on the statement as a statement of fact.
Kong Chee Chui and others v Soh Ghee HongHigh CourtYes[2014] SGHC 8SingaporeCited for the principle that the context in which the Marketing Brochure had been conveyed to the claimant must also be considered.
Mellor v PartridgeEngland and Wales Court of AppealYes[2013] EWCA Civ 477England and WalesCited for the principle that the court must consider what a reasonable person would have inferred was being implicitly represented by the representor’s words and conduct in their context.
Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties)High CourtYes[2014] SGHC 159SingaporeCited as an example where the courts appear to have proceeded on the basis that a defendant is liable for misrepresentation as though he had made the misrepresentation himself via the mere act of passing on or forwarding false information from another.
Lim Koon Park and another v Yap Jin Meng Bryan and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2013] 4 SLR 150SingaporeCited as an example where the courts appear to have proceeded on the basis that a defendant is liable for misrepresentation as though he had made the misrepresentation himself via the mere act of passing on or forwarding false information from another.
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Royal Bank of Scotland PlcN/AYes[2011] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 123N/ACited for the principle that the court may regard a sophisticated commercial party who is told that no representations are being made to him quite differently than it would a consumer.
Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 435SingaporeCited for the principle that in a misrepresentation claim, the claimant must show that the misrepresentation played a real and substantial part in his mind as an inducement.
Larpin, Christian Alfred and another v Kaikhushru Shiavax Nargolwala and anotherHigh CourtYes[2022] 4 SLR 83SingaporeCited for the principle that the plaintiff must establish an intention in the representor to induce, which is presumed once materiality is proved and the evidential burden then shifts to the representee to displace it.
Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland Co and othersHigh CourtYes[2007] 1 SLR(R) 196SingaporeCited for the principle that the plaintiff must establish an intention in the representor to induce, which is presumed once materiality is proved and the evidential burden then shifts to the representee to displace it.
Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology AgencyCourt of AppealYes[2007] 4 SLR 100SingaporeCited for laying down a single test to be applied to determine the existence of a duty of care for all claims in negligence.
Go Dante Yap v Bank Austria Creditanstalt AGCourt of AppealYes[2011] 4 SLR 559SingaporeCited for the principle that sufficient proximity through a voluntary assumption of responsibility can be made out in the presence of certain general categories of relationships.
Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller & Partners LtdN/AYes[1964] 1 AC 465N/ACited for the concept of an “assumption of responsibility” as the basis of a sufficiently proximate relationship so as to give rise to a duty of care in the tort of negligence.
Haw Wan Sin David and another v Sim Tee Meng and anotherHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 272SingaporeCited for the proposition that property agents owe a duty of care to purchasers.
Lie Kee Pong v Chin Chow Yoon and anotherHigh CourtYes[1998] 1 SLR(R) 457SingaporeCited as authority for the proposition that an appropriate means of assessing the quantum of compensation or damages is a straightforward abatement of the purchase price based on the unusable space.
Rohini d/o Balasubramaniam v Yeow Khim Whye Kelvin and anotherHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 149SingaporeCited for the principle that a precondition for the imposition of vicarious liability is that the victim seeking compensation should be without fault himself.
Redgrave v HurdN/AYes(1881) 20 Ch D 1N/ACited for the principle that a representee’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the falsity of the statements is insufficient to defeat a claim of misrepresentation.
Axis Megalink Sdn Bhd v Far East Mining Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 243SingaporeCited for the principle that a representee’s failure to exercise reasonable diligence to discover the falsity of the statements is insufficient to defeat a claim of misrepresentation.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Estate Agents Act 2010Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Good Class Bungalow
  • GCB
  • Marketing Brochure
  • Drainage Reserve
  • Redevelopment Potential
  • Option to Purchase
  • OTP
  • Legal Requisitions
  • Duty of Care
  • Implied Representation

15.2 Keywords

  • Misrepresentation
  • Negligence
  • Property
  • Real Estate Agent
  • Singapore
  • Redevelopment
  • Drainage Reserve

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Misrepresentation90
Vicarious liability75
Real Estate60
Agency Law30
Contract Law20
Personal Injury10

16. Subjects

  • Tort Law
  • Real Estate
  • Agency Law