Kow Kim Song v Kow Kim Siang: Application for Sale of Property Under Supreme Court of Judicature Act
Kow Kim Song and Kow Meow Chuan applied to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore for an order to sell a property and divide the proceeds with their brother, Kow Kim Siang, under s 18(2) of the Supreme Court of Judicature Act. The property was inherited from their late mother. Justice Goh Yihan dismissed the application on 8 August 2024, citing insufficient particularization and prematurity, as the parties were still engaged in good faith discussions. The court emphasized that this procedure should not be used to cut short amicable resolutions.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed with costs to the respondent.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
The High Court dismissed an application for the sale of property, finding insufficient evidence and premature action given ongoing good faith discussions between siblings.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kow Kim Song | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Kow Meow Chuan (Gao Miaozhuang) | Applicant | Individual | Application Dismissed | Lost | |
| Kow Kim Siang (Gao Jingxiang) | Respondent | Individual | Costs Awarded | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The applicants and respondent are siblings who inherited the property from their late mother.
- The parties began discussions about the respondent's purchase of the applicants' share in December 2023.
- The parties agreed to a consideration price of $400,000 for the applicants' share in January 2024.
- The applicants alleged the respondent withdrew from the agreement on 7 May 2024, but provided insufficient evidence.
- The respondent raised concerns about the completion period and amendments to the Option to Purchase.
- The applicants commenced the application to sell the property on 30 May 2024.
- The respondent remained willing to proceed with the transaction and engage in good faith negotiations.
5. Formal Citations
- Kow Kim Song and another v Kow Kim Siang, Originating Application No 581 of 2024, [2024] SGHC 231
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Mdm Ng Siew Lim passed away intestate | |
| Parties began serious discussions about the respondent’s purchase of the applicants’ two-third share in the Property | |
| Parties agreed to a consideration price of $400,000 for the applicants’ share in the Property, and a completion period of four months | |
| Applicants forwarded a signed standard-form OTP to the respondent | |
| Respondent counter-proposed an option fee of $1, and an option exercise fee of $500 | |
| Applicants were agreeable for the option fee to be $1 and the option exercise fee to be $500 | |
| Respondent’s solicitors pointed out that the applicants did not reply to the respondent’s assertion about the completion date | |
| Applicants proposed that the respondent make the necessary amendments to the OTP | |
| Respondent pointed out that the onus was on the applicants to ensure that the OTP reflected the parties’ agreed terms | |
| Applicants insisted that they could not make the amendments to the OTP | |
| Respondent maintained that the onus was on the applicants, as sellers, to obtain HDB’s consent to modify the OTP to reflect the parties’ agreement | |
| Applicants informed the respondent by letter that they were commencing this application | |
| Hearing of the application | |
| Application dismissed with brief reasons | |
| Detailed reasons provided in grounds of decision |
7. Legal Issues
- Sale of Land Under Court Order
- Outcome: The court found that it was not necessary or expedient to order a sale of the property.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 3 SLR 1222
- [2020] 2 SLR 1030
- Sufficiency of Evidence
- Outcome: The court found that the applicants failed to adduce sufficient evidence to make out their case.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [2020] 3 SLR 510
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that there was an agreement of sale between the parties.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2015] 1 SLR 521
- [2010] 1 WLR 753
8. Remedies Sought
- Order for Sale of Property
- Division of Net Sale Proceeds
9. Cause of Actions
- Application for Sale of Property
10. Practice Areas
- Real Estate Law
- Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 1222 | Singapore | Cited for the balancing exercise of various factors to determine whether it is necessary or expedient for a sale to be ordered in lieu of partition. |
| Ooi Chhooi Ngoh Bibiana v Chee Yoh Chuang (care of RSM Corporate Advisory Pte Ltd, as joint and several private trustees in bankruptcy of the bankruptcy estate of Freddie Koh Sin Chong, a bankrupt) and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2020] 2 SLR 1030 | Singapore | Cited for the approach of considering all facts and circumstances and conducting a balancing exercise of various considerations and interests in determining whether a sale should be ordered. |
| HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd (trustee of Capitaland Mall Trust) v Chief Assessor | High Court | Yes | [2020] 3 SLR 510 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is incumbent on an applicant to make out his or her case. |
| Re CK Tan Law Corp | General Division of the High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 204 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must be provided with a full account of factors to carry out the balancing exercise properly. |
| R1 International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AG | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 521 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that parties can agree to the material terms of a contract, while leaving the non-material terms to be agreed later. |
| RTS Flexible Systems Ltd v Molkerei Alois Müller GmbH & Co KG (UK Production) | UK Supreme Court | Yes | [2010] 1 WLR 753 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that parties can agree to bind themselves to agreed terms, leaving certain subsidiary and legally inessential terms to be decided later. |
| Pagnan SpA v Feed Products Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1987] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 601 | N/A | Cited with approval in R1 International Pte Ltd v Lonstroff AG for the principle that parties can agree to bind themselves to agreed terms, leaving certain subsidiary and legally inessential terms to be decided later. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act
- Tenants-in-common
- Option to Purchase
- Completion Period
- Good Faith Negotiations
- Conveyancing Process
15.2 Keywords
- property
- sale
- court order
- siblings
- agreement
- negotiations
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Sale of Land | 80 |
| Property Law | 75 |
| Breach of Contract | 60 |
| Contracts | 50 |
| Tenants-in-common | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Property Law
- Civil Procedure