Eng Joo Lee Pte Ltd v Kian Chiang Granite Quarry Company (Pte) Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 03 April 1984 |
| Date | 03 April 1984 |
| Court | Privy Council |
[1984] SGCA 25
Court of Appeal
Wee Chong Jin CJ
,
TKulasekaram J
and
F A Chua J
Philip Cox QC and Lee Mun Hooi (Jacques & Lewis) for the appellant
Gavin Lightman QC and Wong Pong Tong (Coward Chance) for the respondent.
Hontestroom, The [1927] AC 37 (folld)
Whitehouse v Jordan [1981] 1 WLR 246; [1981] 1 All ER 267 (folld)
Sand and Granite Quarries Act (Cap 282, 1970 Rev Ed)
Statute of Frauds 1677 (c 3) (UK) s 4
Civil Procedure–Appeals–Appeal turning on question of fact–Whether evidence so overwhelming as to convince appellate court that finding of fact below was wrong
The plaintiff was the lessor of a granite quarry and had granted a licence to the defendant to use and manage the quarry. At the expiration of the licence, the defendant continued to use and manage the quarry, excluding the plaintiff from possession of the same. The plaintiff brought an action against the defendant for arrears owed and to injunct it from entering the premises. The defendant claimed that there had been an oral agreement between the parties' representatives to extend the licence for another five years. The trial judge accepted the plaintiff's evidence that no such verbal agreement had taken place, and allowed the plaintiff's claim. The defendant appealed to the Court of Appeal.
Held, dismissing the appeal:
(1) The appellate court will not overrule a decision of the court below on a question of fact in which the judge has had the advantage of seeing the witnesses and observing their demeanour, unless they find some governing fact which in relation to others has created a wrong impression: at [12].
(2) This was a case where there was a straight conflict of primary fact between witnesses where credibility was crucial and the judge's estimate of the witnesses formed a substantial part of his reasons for his judgment. The surrounding circumstances and documentary evidence were not so overwhelming and overpowering as to convince the court that the decision was wrong: at [13].
(delivering the judgment of the court):
1 By a lease dated 5 September 1978 pursuant to an agreement for lease dated 6 January 1970 the President of the Republic of Singapore (“the lessor”) demised to Kian Chiang Granite Quarry Co (“the plaintiffs”) for a term of ten years from 1 September 1969 the land known as Plot 10, Lot 102 pt Mukim XXXII at Pulau Ubin, Singapore (“the quarry”).
2 The lease (so far as is material) provided as follows:
(a) that the plaintiffs should grant to the defendants a licence to use and manage the quarry for the purpose of quarrying granite; and
(b) that the plaintiffs should observe in working and getting the demised minerals all statutory provisions.
3 By the Sand and Granite Quarries Act 1970 (“the Act”) it is provided that no person shall use or manage any land for the purposes of a sand or granite quarry without a licence from the licensing officer authorising him so to do.
4 The plaintiffs and Eng Joo Lee Pte Ltd (“the defendants”) by an agreement in writing (“the agreement”) dated 2 May 1975 agreed (so far as material) as follows:
(a) that the plaintiffs should grant to the defendants a licence to use and manage the quarry for the purpose of quarrying granite;
(b) that the operation of the quarry should be in accordance with the Act;
(c) that the defendants should quarry granite at the quarry and the defendants to pay the plaintiffs for the granite extracted in the following rates:
(i) $1.70 per cubit yard for 3/4in and 5/8in granite; and
(ii) $1.50 per cubit yard for granite blocks. The defendants also agreed to pay for all charges incidental to the operation by the defendants of the quarry;
(d) that the licence should continue for the balance of the period of the 1978 lease; and
(e) that if after the determination or expiration of the terms of the licence the parties could not agree to have a new licence, then the defendants should sell to the plaintiffs all the machinery installed by the defendants (“the machineries”) at 20% of the cost price purchased by the defendants.
5 Sometime in 1979, the plaintiffs entered into negotiations with the lessor for the extension of the 1978...
To continue reading
Request your trial