Tan Tien Sek v Tan Tien Sai: Oral Contract & Parol Evidence Rule Dispute

In Tan Tien Sek v Tan Tien Sai, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute between two brothers over a property at One Tree Hill. The plaintiff, Tan Tien Sek, claimed that the defendant, Tan Tien Sai, had made an oral undertaking to pay him the monetary value of his one-tenth share of the property once it was sold. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Teh Hwee Hwee, dismissed the plaintiff's claim, finding that the alleged oral undertaking was unenforceable under Section 6(d) of the Civil Law Act and that the plaintiff had failed to prove the existence of the oral undertaking or that written documents related to the property transfer were a sham.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Claim Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

A dispute between two brothers over a property transfer. The court ruled against the plaintiff, finding no enforceable oral agreement.

1.7 Decision Date

30 March 2023

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Tan Tien Sek	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	Patrick Fernandez, Mohamed Arshad bin Mohamed Tahir
Tan Tien Sai	Defendant	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Won	Joseph Tay Weiwen, Lai Wei Kang Louis, Tan Kah Wai, Tan Wei Sze

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Teh Hwee Hwee	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Patrick Fernandez	Fernandez LLC
Mohamed Arshad bin Mohamed Tahir	Fernandez LLC
Joseph Tay Weiwen	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Lai Wei Kang Louis	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Tan Kah Wai	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Tan Wei Sze	Shook Lin & Bok LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiff transferred his 10% share of the property to the defendant in 2000.
Plaintiff claimed the transfer was based on an oral undertaking by the defendant to pay him the value of the share upon sale.
Written documents indicated the transfer was for S$320,000, which the plaintiff claimed he never received.
Defendant argued the plaintiff's share was pre-paid by their father.
The property was sold in 2017.
Plaintiff commenced action against the defendant in 2021, claiming payment for his share of the sale proceeds.

5. Formal Citations

Tan Tien Sek v Tan Tien Sai, Suit No 108 of 2021, [2023] SGHC 81

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1976-01-01	TTL divided his three properties by way of ballot among his three sons.
1977-01-18	TTL gifted the Property to the parties in the proportion of 10% to the plaintiff and 90% to the defendant.
1977-04-06	Transfer of property registered.
1988-10-20	Defendant mortgaged his share in the Property.
2000-05-10	Sale and purchase agreement signed.
2000-05-11	Statutory declaration signed.
2000-07-06	Transfer document signed.
2000-07-07	Defendant mortgaged the Property.
2000-07-28	Defendant became the sole legal owner of the Property.
2002-04-05	Defendant further mortgaged the Property.
2017-12-15	Defendant sold the Property.
2019-04-17	Ms Tan Bee Lee visited TTL and discussed the sale of the Property.
2019-07-04	Plaintiff, defendant and Mr Tan Hian Chye accompanied TTL to a lawyer’s office for matters relating to TTL’s will.
2020-09-18	Mr Tan Teck Lye passed away.
2021-01-12	Defendant met the plaintiff at People’s Park Centre to discuss TTL’s probate.
2021-01-29	Plaintiff commenced action against the defendant.
2022-10-19	Trial began.
2022-10-21	Trial.
2022-10-25	Trial.
2022-10-26	Trial.
2022-10-27	Trial.
2022-10-28	Trial.
2022-12-05	Closing submissions.
2022-12-27	Judgment reserved.
2023-03-31	Judgment issued.

7. Legal Issues

Enforceability of Oral Undertaking
- Outcome: The court held that the alleged oral undertaking was unenforceable under Section 6(d) of the Civil Law Act and that the plaintiff could not rely on the doctrine of part performance.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Compliance with Section 6(d) of the Civil Law Act
  - Application of the doctrine of part performance
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 4 SLR 176
  - (1883) 8 App Cas 467
  - [1976] AC 536
  - [2021] SGHC 11
  - [2022] SGHC(A) 1
  - [2019] 1 LRC 236
  - [2019] SGHC 40
  - [2010] 1 SLR 338
  - [2009] 2 SLR(R) 73
Existence of Oral Undertaking
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had not proven on a balance of probabilities that the defendant gave him the oral undertaking as alleged.
- Category: Substantive
Validity of Written Documents (Sham)
- Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prove that the written documents were a sham.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2013] 2 SLR 715
  - [2021] 1 SLR 1176
  - [2008] 1 SLR(R) 375
  - [1992] 2 SLR(R) 858
Parol Evidence Rule
- Outcome: The court considered the parol evidence rule but found it moot because the plaintiff failed to prove the oral undertaking.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2021] 1 SLR 1176

8. Remedies Sought

Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Oral Contract

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Real Estate Law

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Hu Lee Impex Pte Ltd v Lim Aik Seng (trading as Tong Seng Vegetable Trading	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 176	Singapore	Cited for the standards to determine whether a promisee’s acts constitute sufficient part performance.
Elizabeth Maddison v John Alderson	N/A	Yes	(1883) 8 App Cas 467	England	Cited for the standard that the acts relied upon as part performance “unequivocally” point towards the existence of a contract fitting the description of the oral contract alleged to exist.
Steadman v Steadman	N/A	Yes	[1976] AC 536	England	Cited for the standard that on an analysis of all the circumstances (but leaving aside evidence of the purported oral contract), it is “more probably than not” that the acts relied upon as part performance were done in reliance on the oral contract alleged to exist.
Pang Moh Yin Patricia and another v Sim Kwai Meng	General Division of the High Court	Yes	[2021] SGHC 11	Singapore	Cited for the historical background leading to the recognition of the doctrine of part performance as an exception to the requirements under s 6(d) of the CLA in Singapore.
Sim Kwai Meng v Pang Moh Yin Patricia and another	Appellate Division of the High Court	Yes	[2022] SGHC(A) 1	Singapore	Cited to note that the appeal from the decision in Patricia Pang was allowed in part by the Appellate Division of the High Court.
Pipikos v Trayans	Australian High Court	Yes	[2019] 1 LRC 236	Australia	Cited for the reasoning that the Maddison standard was preferred.
Liberty Sky Investments Ltd v Goh Seng Heng and another	High Court	Yes	[2019] SGHC 40	Singapore	Cited for applying the Maddison standard.
Joseph Mathew and another v Singh Chiranjeev and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 338	Singapore	Cited in support of the invocation of the doctrine of part performance.
Singh Chiranjeev and another v Joseph Mathew and others	High Court	Yes	[2009] 2 SLR(R) 73	Singapore	Cited in support of the invocation of the doctrine of part performance.
Chng Bee Kheng and another (executrixes and trustees of the estate of Fock Poh Kum, deceased) v Chng Eng Chye	N/A	Yes	[2013] 2 SLR 715	Singapore	Cited for the definition of a sham.
Toh Eng Tiah v Jiang Angelina and another appeal	N/A	Yes	[2021] 1 SLR 1176	Singapore	Cited for the legal burden of proving that the Written Documents are a sham.
Koon Seng Construction Pte Ltd v Chenab Contractor Pte Ltd and another	N/A	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR(R) 375	Singapore	Cited for ascertaining whether the documents represent the true relationship between the parties.
TKM (Singapore) Pte Ltd v Export Credit Insurance Corp of Singapore Ltd	N/A	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR(R) 858	Singapore	Cited for ascertaining whether the documents represent the true relationship between the parties.
Ong Wui Teck (personal representative of the estate of Chew Chen Chin, deceased) v Ong Wui Swoon and another and another appeal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2019] SGCA 61	Singapore	Cited for the presumption that an intention to create legal relations is generally absent in social and domestic arrangements.
Akfel Commodities Turkey Holding Anonim Sirketi v Townsend, Adam	N/A	Yes	[2019] 2 SLR 412	Singapore	Cited for the argument that non-payment alone might well just indicate a breach of a payment obligation and not necessarily indicate a sham.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Civil Law Act 1909	Singapore
Evidence Act 1893	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Oral Undertaking
One-Tenth Share
Parol Evidence Rule
Part Performance
Sham
Written Documents
Property Transfer

15.2 Keywords

contract
property
oral agreement
parol evidence
Singapore
High Court
real estate
litigation

16. Subjects

Contract Law
Property Law
Civil Litigation

17. Areas of Law

Contract Law
Property Law
Civil Procedure