Chay Chong Hwa and Others v Seah Mary
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 27 October 1986 |
| Docket Number | Privy Council Appeal No 69 of 1984 |
| Date | 27 October 1986 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1986] SGPC 4
Privy Council
Lord Bridge of Harwich
,
Lord Templeman
,
Lord Ackner
,
Lord Oliver of Aylmerton
and
Sir Ivor Richardson
Privy Council Appeal No 69 of 1984
Robert Reid QC and Judith Jackson (Jacques & Lewis) for the appellants
Gerald Godfrey QC and Geoffrey Zelin (Coward Chance) for the respondent.
MTA Mootiah Chitty v Ong Hai Swee (1911) 12 SSLR 84 (folld)
Estate Duty Act (Cap 137, 1970Rev Ed)ss 37, 38, 39 (consd)
Land Titles Act (Cap 276, 1970Rev Ed)ss 47, 92, 93 (consd)
Probate and Administration Act (Cap 23, 1970Rev Ed)ss 2, 37 (consd)
Land–Sale of land–Completion–Sale of property by administrators of estate–Administrators obtaining order that letters of administration be granted but actual grant not obtained–Purchaser requesting original grant of letters of administration–Vendors refusing to produce grant and purporting to annul sale–Whether production of grant necessary for completion–Condition 5 Revised Singapore Conditions of Sale–Sections 47, 92 and 93 Land Titles Act (Cap 276, 1970 Rev Ed)–Probate and Administration–Administration of assets–Sale of property by administrators of estate–Whether production of grant of letters of administration necessary for completion of sale–Sections 2 and 37 Probate and Administration Act (Cap 23, 1970 Rev Ed)–Revenue Law–Estate duty–Probate–Whether Commissioner's certificate of revenue clearance sufficient to establish administrators' title to property–Sections 37, 38 and 39 Estate Duty Act (Cap 137, 1970 Rev Ed)
The three first-named appellants and one Lee Ee Hoong were tenants in common and the owners of four undivided shares in a property known as 12 Sunset Square, Singapore (“the property”). Lee Ee Hoong died intestate and the fourth appellants were the administrators of his estate. The appellants agreed to sell the property to the respondent.
The written contract of sale recited the death of Lee Ee Hoong and that “letters of administration to his estate were granted by the High Court of the Republic of Singapore to the Administrators on 10 October 1975 in Probate No 934 of 1975”. Although the fourth appellants had obtained an order that letters of administration be granted to them they had not obtained an actual grant pursuant to that order.
The respondent's solicitors requested an “original copy of Letter of Administration No 934 of 1975” but the appellants' solicitors refused this request. The appellants' solicitors then gave notice, pursuant to the terms of the contract, to annul the sale unless the respondent's requirement was withdrawn. They also returned the deposit and refused to proceed with the sale. The respondent claimed appropriate declarations from the court that the appellants were not entitled to call for completion without producing the grant, that the notice purportedly given was invalid and that the contract remained on foot. Among other contentions, the appellants argued that cll 4 and 9 of the contract showed that what the respondent had agreed to do was to accept that a certificate of revenue clearance in respect of the land issued by the Commissioner pursuant to s 38 of the Estate Duty Act (Cap 137, 1970 Rev Ed) should be sufficient to establish, without more, the appellants' title. The trial judge and the Court of Appeal granted the declaration sought. The appellants appealed to the Privy Council.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) The production of the petition with the endorsed order as proof of the personal representative's title without obtaining letters of administration pursuant to the order was insufficient. Without the extraction of the grant the appellants were not registered as proprietors and were unable to complete the sale. The respondent's insistence upon the extraction and production of the actual grant of letters of administration was justified and necessary: at [6], [10] and [11].
(2) The production of the certificate from the Commissioner called for in cl 4 of the contract was necessary quite apart from the production of the grant if the respondent was to obtain an unencumbered title to the property, since without it the property would remain subject to the estate duty charge: at...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Lee Han Tiong and Others v Tay Yok Swee
...with the law. This passage from the judgment was cited with approval in the judgment of the Privy Council reported in [1987] 1 MLJ 173; [1986] SLR 48. The vesting of property arises under s 37 of the Probate and Administration Act which was introduced by an amendment in 1966. The argument c......
-
Wong Moy (administratrix of the estate of Theng Chee Khim, deceased) v Soo Ah Choy
... ... , Mr Tan brought to my attention the case of Chay Chong Hwa & Ors v Seah Mary [1984] 2 MLJ 251 where ... ...
-
Lee Peter Michael v Tacplus Property Services Pte Ltd
...161 ER 1066 (folld) Chay Chong Hwa v Seah Mary [1983-1984] SLR (R) 505; [1984-1985] SLR 183, CA (folld) Chay Chong Hwa v Seah Mary [1985-1986] SLR (R) 991; [1986] SLR 48, PC (folld) Earl of Warwick v Greville (1809) 1 Phill Ecc 123; 161 ER 934 (folld) Fountain Forestry Ltd v Edwards [1975] ......
- Koo Chen Lim and Another v Foo Ah Kim
-
Contract Law
...9.60 Applying the ratio decidendi of Chay Chong Hwa v Seah Mary[1984—1985] SLR 183 (which was upheld on appeal to the Privy Council in [1986] SLR 48) to the construction and application of cl 5 of the Law Society of Singapore”s Standard Conditions of Sale (which gives the vendor a right to ......