Ang Hong Wei v Ang Teng Hai: Summary Judgment, Verbal Agreements & Property Sale
In Ang Hong Wei and others v Ang Teng Hai and another, before the General Division of the High Court of Singapore on 18 and 26 December 2023, with a judgment date of 19 January 2024, the Claimants sought summary judgment against the Defendants for failing to pay the full price difference from a property sale agreement. The Defendants claimed verbal agreements altered the payment terms. The court allowed the appeal in part, granting summary judgment for a portion of the claim and conditional leave to defend for the remainder.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Summary judgment case involving a property sale, verbal agreements, and a dispute over payment terms. The court allowed the appeal in part.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ang Hong Wei | Claimant | Individual | Partial Summary Judgment Granted | Partial | |
| Ang Chin Fang Sheelia | Claimant | Individual | Partial Summary Judgment Granted | Partial | |
| Ang Pei Ting | Claimant | Individual | Partial Summary Judgment Granted | Partial | |
| Ang Teng Hai | Defendant | Individual | Leave to Defend Granted Conditionally | Partial | |
| Ang Keng Been (Hong Qingming) | Defendant | Individual | Leave to Defend Granted Conditionally | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Christopher Tan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Claimants are deputies of Mdm Poh Gek Eng.
- The 1st Defendant is Mdm Poh’s step-son and the 2nd Defendant is his son.
- Defendants agreed to purchase Mdm Poh's property for $1 million.
- The agreement allowed Defendants to pay $600,000 in monthly installments.
- If the Defendants sold the property within ten years, they would pay Mdm Poh the difference between the sale price and $1 million, up to $500,000.
- Defendants sold the property in December 2017 for over $1.5 million.
- Defendants claimed verbal agreements altered the payment terms.
5. Formal Citations
- Ang Hong Wei and others v Ang Teng Hai and another, Originating Claim No 362 of 2023 (Registrar’s Appeal No 234 of 2023 and Registrar’s Appeal No 235 of 2023), [2024] SGHC 14
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendants entered into an agreement with Mdm Poh to purchase her property for $1 million. | |
| The 1st Defendant entered into the first verbal agreement with Mdm Poh. | |
| The 1st Defendant made monthly payments of $3,300 to Mdm Poh. | |
| Defendants sold the Property via an en bloc sale. | |
| Monthly payments of $3,300 stopped. | |
| The 1st Defendant entered into the second verbal agreement with Mdm Poh. | |
| Claimants brought HC/SUM 2583/2023 for summary judgment against both the 1st Defendant and 2nd Defendant. | |
| Hearing of RA 234 and RA 235. | |
| Hearing of RA 234 and RA 235. | |
| Judgment date. |
7. Legal Issues
- Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court granted summary judgment in part.
- Category: Procedural
- Implied Term
- Outcome: The court found that the agreement contained an implied term that the price difference must be paid within a reasonable time.
- Category: Substantive
- Consideration
- Outcome: The court found that the first verbal agreement was potentially supported by consideration, but the second verbal agreement was not.
- Category: Substantive
- Verbal Agreements
- Outcome: The court considered whether verbal agreements supplemented or varied the original written agreement.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Siemens Industry Software v Lion Global Offshore | High Court | Yes | [2014] SGHC 251 | Singapore | Cited regarding the supplementation of a written contract with a gap. |
| Sembcorp Marine Ltd v PPL Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 193 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a term should only be implied when the gap is inadvertent. |
| T2 Networks Pte Ltd v Nasioncom Sdn Bhd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 1 | Singapore | Cited regarding the unenforceability of a settlement agreement due to uncertainty in the payment schedule. |
| Liu Shu Ming & anor v Koh Chew Chee & anor matter | Appellate Division | Yes | [2023] 1 SLR 1477 | Singapore | Endorsed the principle that where a contract is silent as to the time of performance, the law implies an obligation to perform the act within a reasonable time. |
| Ma Hongjin v SCP Holdings Pte Ltd & anor appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 304 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that variations of a contract must be supported by consideration. |
| Teo Seng Kee Bob v Arianecorp Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2008] 3 SLR(R) 1114 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a practical benefit may qualify as good consideration. |
| Chwee Kin Keong and others v Digilandmall.com Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 594 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that modern contract law requires very little to find the existence of consideration. |
| Gay Choon Ing v Loh Sze Ti Terence Peter and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 332 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that consideration must flow from the promisee. |
| Asian Eco Technology Pte Ltd v Deng Yiming | High Court | Yes | [2023] SGHC 227 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage test applied in summary judgment applications. |
| Abdul Salam Asanaru Pillai (trading as South Kerala Cashew Exporters) v Nomanbhoy & Sons Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2007] SGHC 42 | Singapore | Cited for the principles on imposing conditions when granting leave to defend in summary judgment applications. |
| M2B World Asia Pacific Pte Ltd v Matsumura Akihiko | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 325 | Singapore | Cited regarding the threshold for a story being 'inherently improbable'. |
| Ling Yew Kong v Teo Vin Li Richard | High Court | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 123 | Singapore | Cited where the High Court granted summary judgment as there was no evidence supporting the defendant’s assertion that there was an unrecorded/undocumented oral contract or understanding. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (2014 Rev Ed) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Summary Judgment
- Verbal Agreement
- Price Difference
- Implied Term
- Consideration
- En bloc sale
- Special Condition
- Reasonable time
15.2 Keywords
- summary judgment
- verbal agreement
- property sale
- contract law
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Summary Judgement | 80 |
| Civil Procedure | 75 |
| Contract Law | 65 |
| Verbal Agreements | 50 |
| Breach of Contract | 50 |
| Evidence | 40 |
| Estoppel | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Civil Procedure
- Real Estate Law