LIM SZE ENG v LIN CHOO MEE

LIM SZE ENG v LIN CHOO MEE

The timelines in cll 10(b) and 10(c) were not absolute once the parties themselves pleaded an implied Reasonable Price term; however the appellant breached the implied Reasonable Endeavours obligation by refusing to lower the reserve price despite market evidence and valuer recommendation, and breached cl 13 by...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] SGCA 84
Parties
Appellant; Defendant: LIM SZE ENG; Respondent; Plaintiff: LIN CHOO MEE
Court
Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
30 November 2018
Case Number
CA/CA 204/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed (successful on Absolute Obligation Issue but dismissed on Reasonable Endeavours and Costs Order issues)
Legal Topics
Contractual Interpretation, Implied Terms, Reasonable Endeavours Clauses, Sale and Valuation of Property, Winding Up Under S254 Companies Act, Enforcement of Costs Orders
Source Language
english
Contract Company Law Civil Procedure Property Law Costs Contractual Interpretation Implied Terms Reasonable Endeavours Clauses +3 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

LIM SZE ENG

Appellant; Defendant

LIN CHOO MEE

Respondent; Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether cll 10(b) and 10(c) imposed absolute obligations to sell the FEP Unit by 28 June 2016 and to pay the Consideration by 28 September 2016 (Absolute Obligation Issue)
  2. 2 Whether appellant breached the implied Reasonable Endeavours term by refusing to lower the reserve price for the FEP Unit (Reasonable Endeavours Issue)
  3. 3 Whether appellant breached cl 13 by failing to satisfy the pre-existing Costs Order (Costs Order Issue)

Ratio Decidendi

The timelines in cll 10(b) and 10(c) were not absolute once the parties themselves pleaded an implied Reasonable Price term; however the appellant breached the implied Reasonable Endeavours obligation by refusing to lower the reserve price despite market evidence and valuer recommendation, and breached cl 13 by failing to satisfy the pre-existing Costs Order; appeal dismissed on those grounds and costs awarded to respondent.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed (successful on Absolute Obligation Issue but dismissed on Reasonable Endeavours and Costs Order issues)

Orders

  • Appeal dismissed
  • Judgment below affirmed in part as to breaches of the Reasonable Endeavours term and cl 13