Cheng William v Allister Lim & Thrumurgan and another and another appeal
Court held claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to inform his solicitors of the material representation he relied on and reduced damages by 15%; seller's fraudulent misrepresentation warranted greater share of contribution: Cheng liable for 65% of the apportioned defendant liability, Defendants 30%, Ng 5%; damages recoverable reduced accordingly and costs reallocated in line with new apportionment. Legal principle established: omission by client to disclose material information to solicitor can constitute contributory negligence; apportionment under Civil Law Act must account for both causation and blameworthiness.
- Citation
- [2015] SGCA 15
- Parties
- Appellant (civil Appeal No 148 of 2014); Fourth Respondent (civil Appeal No 152 of 2014): Cheng William; Respondents (ca 148/2014); Appellants (ca 152/2014); Defendants in the High Court: Allister Lim & Thrumurgan and another; Plaintiffs in High Court; Respondents (ca 152/2014); Respondents in CA 148/2014: Su Ah Tee and others; Fifth Respondent (appeared in Person); Negligent Misrepresenter: Ng Sing; Sixth Respondent (defaulted; Absent): SGR Property Pte Ltd
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Singapore
- Judgment Date
- 16 March 2015
- Case Number
- Civil Appeal Nos 148 and 152 of 2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeals From High Court Judgment (appeals by Purchaser and by Conveyancing Solicitors)
- Outcome
- CA 148/2014 dismissed; CA 152/2014 allowed in part
- Legal Topics
- Fraudulent Misrepresentation, Negligent Misrepresentation, Contributory Negligence, Apportionment of Liability Under Civil Law Act S15/s16, Solicitor's Duty to Inform and Elicit Instructions, Costs and Indemnity
- Source Language
- English
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Cheng William
Appellant (civil Appeal No 148 of 2014); Fourth Respondent (civil Appeal No 152 of 2014)
Allister Lim & Thrumurgan and another
Respondents (ca 148/2014); Appellants (ca 152/2014); Defendants in the High Court
Su Ah Tee and others
Plaintiffs in High Court; Respondents (ca 152/2014); Respondents in CA 148/2014
Ng Sing
Fifth Respondent (appeared in Person); Negligent Misrepresenter
SGR Property Pte Ltd
Sixth Respondent (defaulted; Absent)
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Appeals From High Court Judgment (appeals by Purchaser and by Conveyancing Solicitors)
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether seller (Cheng) made fraudulent misrepresentation regarding remaining lease term
- 2 Whether conveyancing solicitor (Allister Lim & Thrumurgan) was negligent in failing to inform client of title search results showing 17 years remaining
- 3 Whether claimant (Su) was contributorily negligent for failing to inform his solicitors of the representation he relied on
Ratio Decidendi
Court held claimant was contributorily negligent for failing to inform his solicitors of the material representation he relied on and reduced damages by 15%; seller's fraudulent misrepresentation warranted greater share of contribution: Cheng liable for 65% of the apportioned defendant liability, Defendants 30%, Ng 5%; damages recoverable reduced accordingly and costs reallocated in line with new apportionment. Legal principle established: omission by client to disclose material information to solicitor can constitute contributory negligence; apportionment under Civil Law Act must account for both causation and blameworthiness.
Court Disposition
CA 148/2014 dismissed; CA 152/2014 allowed in part
Orders
- Reduce Plaintiffs' recoverable damages by 15% for contributory negligence
- Apply apportionment of the Defendants' liability (85% net after contributory negligence) as follows: Cheng 65%, Allister Lim & Thrumurgan 30%, Ng 5%
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment