http://www.singaporelaw.sg/rss/judg/65164.html
Excerpt:
9 Some time after these documents were signed, Koh sought fresh legal advice. He approached BMS, whom he casually knew, for advice. On BMS’s advice, Koh and his wife affirmed statutory declarations fully disclosing the various alleged breaches of duties by the agents, solicitors and moneylenders involved in the cash-back arrangement. Relying on these statutory declarations, similar complaints were also lodged with the police (on 12 January 2004)[note: 8], the HDB[note: 9] and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“the IRAS”)[note: 10] (both on 27 February 2004).
10 The Agents and the Buyers were shocked by this bombshell. Teo, nevertheless, persevered in her attempts to persuade the Sellers to proceed with the sale of the Flat. Koh, however, adamantly refused to deal with her directly. Subsequently, a meeting was arranged at the premises of M/s K K Yap (the “K K Yap Meeting”) on 15 January 2004. BMS, the Sellers, the Buyers and Ms Ong Bee Lay (“Ong”), a solicitor from Messers PKWA Law Practice LLC, were present at the meeting. Ong attended the meeting at the Buyers’ request. The Agents were not invited to attend. During this meeting, Hong informed BMS about the cash-back arrangement. In response, BMS tersely stated that “he did not want to know about [the] arrangements” from Hong and would sue on the price stated on the OTP.[note: 11] No settlement was reached. After the meeting, Ong advised the Buyers that the transaction was illegal (she had not been earlier informed by Hong of these details prior to the meeting) and that she would not act for them to complete the deal. The Buyers accepted her advice and called off the purchase.
11 On BMS’s advice, Koh engaged a new agent to sell the Flat. It was finally sold, on 21 March 2004, for only $380,000.[note: 12] On 2 April 2004, BMS sent a letter of demand to the Buyers, demanding payment of $120,000, comprising $110,000 (being the difference between the inflated sale price and the price at which the Flat was eventually sold at) and $10,000 (for expenses).[note: 13] There was no response to this demand.[note: 14]
12 On 10 April 2004, the Straits Times published an article (Tanya Fong, “Flat seller claims he was asked to inflate its price” The Straits Times (10 April 2004) at p 3) in which Koh reportedly asserted that he was “asked to inflate the selling price of his flat by $100,000”.[note: 15] This article immediately caught the attention of Propnex’s management. PropNex then hastily arranged for a meeting at the Marina Mandarin Singapore hotel (the “Marina Mandarin Meeting”) on the same evening. The Marina Mandarin Meeting was attended by BMS, Mr K K Yap, Koh, the Agents, and Mr Mohd Ismail, the chief executive officer of Propnex. During this meeting, Ho offered to pay the Sellers $20,000 to settle all the claims made by the Sellers, but his offer was roundly rejected by BMS.
13 Two days after the Marina Mandarin Meeting, a writ of summons endorsed with a statement of claim (the “SOC”)[note: 16] was filed by M/s K K Yap on behalf of the Sellers in the Subordinate Courts, with the Buyers named as the defendants. The SOC read:
1. The Plaintiffs are the lessees of a Housing and Development Board apartment known as Block 82 Redhill Lane #02-75 Singapore 150082 (hereinafter referred to as the “Premises”).
2. On the 30th. September 2003, the Plaintiffs granted the Defendants an Option to Purchase the said [sic] at a price of $490,000.
3. On the same day, the Defendants duly exercised the said Option.
4. The consent/approval of the Housing Development Board for the sale and purchase was duly obtained. The sale and purchase was fixed for completion on 5th. January 2004.
5. The Defendants failed, refused and/or neglected to complete the sale and purchase on 5th January 2004 or thereafter despite a Notice to Complete issued pursuant to Clause 29 of the Singapore Law Society’s Conditions of Sale 1999 being served on their solicitors.
6. The Plaintiffs thereafter put the said Premises up for sale. In or about late March 2004, the Plaintiffs received an offer for $380,000 for the said premises. The said offer was the highest that was received. The Plaintiffs thereafter, granted an Option to the offerors to sell the said premises to them at the price of $380,000.
7. By reason of the aforesaid, the Defendants have been in breach of agreement and the Plaintiffs have suffered loss and damage.
And the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants, jointly and severally for:-
i. damages and loss;
ii. interest;
iii. cost.
It is worth noting, at this juncture, two points. There were no references, whatsoever, to the agreed sale price of $390,000. On the face of it, this was a claim for a breach of contract in connection with the sale of the Flat for the sum of $490,000. Further, the claim for damages was not quantified.
14 Not long after the filing of the SOC, the Buyers and the Agents agreed with the Sellers to settle the claim for $70,000.[note: 17] The Buyers were represented by solicitors in the settlement agreement. The Agents testified that they were advised by PropNex’s management (and its solicitors) to settle the claim. They were also very concerned about being prosecuted for their involvement in the cash-back arrangement.[note: 18] The Buyers apparently also had similar concerns and contributed towards the settlement.[note: 19] Of this $70,000 settlement sum, the Agents paid $55,000 while the Buyers contributed $15,000.[note: 20] The suit was later discontinued on 30 April 2004.[note: 21] Before that, the Buyers did not file any pleadings in relation to the claim; neither did their solicitors appear to dispute the legitimacy of the claim before the suit was discontinued. Further, neither BMS nor Koh had, as a term of the settlement, agreed to withdraw all the earlier complaints they had lodged.
Excerpt:
9 Some time after these documents were signed, Koh sought fresh legal advice. He approached BMS, whom he casually knew, for advice. On BMS’s advice, Koh and his wife affirmed statutory declarations fully disclosing the various alleged breaches of duties by the agents, solicitors and moneylenders involved in the cash-back arrangement. Relying on these statutory declarations, similar complaints were also lodged with the police (on 12 January 2004)[note: 8], the HDB[note: 9] and the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (“the IRAS”)[note: 10] (both on 27 February 2004).
10 The Agents and the Buyers were shocked by this bombshell. Teo, nevertheless, persevered in her attempts to persuade the Sellers to proceed with the sale of the Flat. Koh, however, adamantly refused to deal with her directly. Subsequently, a meeting was arranged at the premises of M/s K K Yap (the “K K Yap Meeting”) on 15 January 2004. BMS, the Sellers, the Buyers and Ms Ong Bee Lay (“Ong”), a solicitor from Messers PKWA Law Practice LLC, were present at the meeting. Ong attended the meeting at the Buyers’ request. The Agents were not invited to attend. During this meeting, Hong informed BMS about the cash-back arrangement. In response, BMS tersely stated that “he did not want to know about [the] arrangements” from Hong and would sue on the price stated on the OTP.[note: 11] No settlement was reached. After the meeting, Ong advised the Buyers that the transaction was illegal (she had not been earlier informed by Hong of these details prior to the meeting) and that she would not act for them to complete the deal. The Buyers accepted her advice and called off the purchase.
11 On BMS’s advice, Koh engaged a new agent to sell the Flat. It was finally sold, on 21 March 2004, for only $380,000.[note: 12] On 2 April 2004, BMS sent a letter of demand to the Buyers, demanding payment of $120,000, comprising $110,000 (being the difference between the inflated sale price and the price at which the Flat was eventually sold at) and $10,000 (for expenses).[note: 13] There was no response to this demand.[note: 14]
12 On 10 April 2004, the Straits Times published an article (Tanya Fong, “Flat seller claims he was asked to inflate its price” The Straits Times (10 April 2004) at p 3) in which Koh reportedly asserted that he was “asked to inflate the selling price of his flat by $100,000”.[note: 15] This article immediately caught the attention of Propnex’s management. PropNex then hastily arranged for a meeting at the Marina Mandarin Singapore hotel (the “Marina Mandarin Meeting”) on the same evening. The Marina Mandarin Meeting was attended by BMS, Mr K K Yap, Koh, the Agents, and Mr Mohd Ismail, the chief executive officer of Propnex. During this meeting, Ho offered to pay the Sellers $20,000 to settle all the claims made by the Sellers, but his offer was roundly rejected by BMS.
13 Two days after the Marina Mandarin Meeting, a writ of summons endorsed with a statement of claim (the “SOC”)[note: 16] was filed by M/s K K Yap on behalf of the Sellers in the Subordinate Courts, with the Buyers named as the defendants. The SOC read:
1. The Plaintiffs are the lessees of a Housing and Development Board apartment known as Block 82 Redhill Lane #02-75 Singapore 150082 (hereinafter referred to as the “Premises”).
2. On the 30th. September 2003, the Plaintiffs granted the Defendants an Option to Purchase the said [sic] at a price of $490,000.
3. On the same day, the Defendants duly exercised the said Option.
4. The consent/approval of the Housing Development Board for the sale and purchase was duly obtained. The sale and purchase was fixed for completion on 5th. January 2004.
5. The Defendants failed, refused and/or neglected to complete the sale and purchase on 5th January 2004 or thereafter despite a Notice to Complete issued pursuant to Clause 29 of the Singapore Law Society’s Conditions of Sale 1999 being served on their solicitors.
6. The Plaintiffs thereafter put the said Premises up for sale. In or about late March 2004, the Plaintiffs received an offer for $380,000 for the said premises. The said offer was the highest that was received. The Plaintiffs thereafter, granted an Option to the offerors to sell the said premises to them at the price of $380,000.
7. By reason of the aforesaid, the Defendants have been in breach of agreement and the Plaintiffs have suffered loss and damage.
And the Plaintiffs claim against the Defendants, jointly and severally for:-
i. damages and loss;
ii. interest;
iii. cost.
It is worth noting, at this juncture, two points. There were no references, whatsoever, to the agreed sale price of $390,000. On the face of it, this was a claim for a breach of contract in connection with the sale of the Flat for the sum of $490,000. Further, the claim for damages was not quantified.
14 Not long after the filing of the SOC, the Buyers and the Agents agreed with the Sellers to settle the claim for $70,000.[note: 17] The Buyers were represented by solicitors in the settlement agreement. The Agents testified that they were advised by PropNex’s management (and its solicitors) to settle the claim. They were also very concerned about being prosecuted for their involvement in the cash-back arrangement.[note: 18] The Buyers apparently also had similar concerns and contributed towards the settlement.[note: 19] Of this $70,000 settlement sum, the Agents paid $55,000 while the Buyers contributed $15,000.[note: 20] The suit was later discontinued on 30 April 2004.[note: 21] Before that, the Buyers did not file any pleadings in relation to the claim; neither did their solicitors appear to dispute the legitimacy of the claim before the suit was discontinued. Further, neither BMS nor Koh had, as a term of the settlement, agreed to withdraw all the earlier complaints they had lodged.
