Chen Qiming v Huttons Asia: Misrepresentation, Estate Agents Act & Property Purchase Dispute

In Chen Qiming v Huttons Asia Pte Ltd and others, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore dismissed all claims brought by Plaintiff Chen Qiming against Huttons Asia Pte Ltd and Ong Jianlong, the defendants, on April 17, 2024. The case arose from a dispute over the sale and purchase of a condominium unit, where Chen alleged fraudulent and/or negligent misrepresentation, breach of contract, negligence, and breach of statutory duty by Ong, a real estate agent, and sought to hold Huttons vicariously liable. The court found that Chen failed to prove his claims.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

All of Chen's claims against both Ong and Huttons are dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Chen Qiming sues Huttons Asia and Ong Jianlong for misrepresentation in a property purchase, claim dismissed. Key issues: tort, contract, statutory interpretation.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
S MohanJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Chen purchased a condominium unit, paying a 10% booking fee.
  2. Chen made further payments, totaling 30% of the purchase price.
  3. Chen failed to exercise the Option to Purchase (OTP) by the deadline.
  4. Chen forfeited S$1,544,100.00 paid to TG.
  5. Chen claimed Ong made misrepresentations regarding immediate occupancy.
  6. Chen claimed Ong misrepresented the possibility of constructing a loft.
  7. Chen claimed Ong misrepresented the ease of reselling the property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Chen Qiming v Huttons Asia Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 234 of 2022, [2024] SGHC 103

6. Timeline

DateEvent
First Viewing
Second Viewing
Third Viewing
Payment by Chen to TG of S$514,700.00
OTP was issued to Chen by TG
Payment by Chen to TG of S$7,350.00
Payment by Chen to TG of S$250,000.00
Chen received the keys to the Property
Payment by Chen to TG of S$310,000.00
Payment by Chen to TG of S$310,000.00
Payment by Chen to TG of S$152,050.00
The first recorded conversation between Chen and Ong
The second recorded conversation between Chen and Ong
The third recorded conversation between Chen and Ong
Lapsing of the OTP and forfeiture of the S$1,544,100.00 paid by Chen
Trial began
Trial concluded
Judgment reserved
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Fraudulent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the elements of fraudulent misrepresentation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435
  2. Negligent Misrepresentation
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the elements of negligent misrepresentation.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2021] SGHC 84
  3. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove the existence of a contract or its breach.
    • Category: Substantive
  4. Breach of Statutory Duty
    • Outcome: The court found that the plaintiff had no private right of action under the Estate Agents Act 2010 or its regulations.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2005] 1 SLR(R) 64

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Monetary Damages

9. Cause of Actions

  • Fraudulent Misrepresentation
  • Negligent Misrepresentation
  • Breach of Contract
  • Negligence
  • Breach of Statutory Duty

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Panatron Pte Ltd and another v Lee Cheow Lee and anotherCourt of AppealYes[2001] 2 SLR(R) 435SingaporeCited for the cumulative ingredients to a claim in fraudulent misrepresentation.
Ma Hongjin v Sim Eng TongHigh CourtYes[2021] SGHC 84SingaporeCited for the cumulative ingredients that have to be established for negligent misrepresentations.
Tan Chin Seng and others v Raffles Town Club Pte LtdCourt of AppealYes[2003] 3 SLR(R) 307SingaporeCited for the principle that a representation of intention or belief is not a representation of fact.
X (Minors) v Bedfordshire County CouncilHouse of LordsYes[1995] 2 AC 633England and WalesCited for the principle that regulatory legislation is for the benefit of society in general, not just specific individuals.
JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd and othersCourt of AppealYes[2020] 2 SLR 1256SingaporeCited for the principle that allegations of fraud or misrepresentation must be pleaded with utmost particularity.
Mann Holdings Pte Ltd and another v Ung Yoke HongHigh CourtYes[2018] SGHC 69SingaporeCited for the principle that the Court is entitled to consider competing translations.
Loh Luan Choo Betsy (alias Loh Baby) (administratrix of the estate of Lim Him Long) and others v Foo Wah JekHigh CourtYes[2005] 1 SLR(R) 64SingaporeCited for the principle that breach of a statutory duty does not in itself give rise to a private law cause of action for damages.

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

  • Option to Purchase
  • Booking Fee
  • Enhanced Deferred Payment Scheme
  • Occupation Representation
  • Loft Representation
  • Resale Representation
  • Purchaser Particulars Form
  • Side Letter
  • Oral Understanding
  • Oral Agreement

15.2 Keywords

  • misrepresentation
  • real estate
  • contract
  • estate agent
  • property purchase
  • singapore

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Misrepresentation
  • Contract Law
  • Real Estate
  • Statutory Interpretation