Ong Keh Choo v Paul Huntington Bernardo: Contract Law, Consideration & Misrepresentation
In Ong Keh Choo v Paul Huntington Bernardo, the Singapore Court of Appeal heard an appeal regarding a claim for $316,000, an alleged option fee for a property. Ong Keh Choo, the plaintiff, claimed Paul Huntington Bernardo's cheque was payment for an option to purchase granted to Tran Hong Hanh. The lower court dismissed the claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed Ong Keh Choo's appeal, finding that the option to purchase was terminated by mutual agreement. The court allowed the respondents 25% of the costs of the appeal and 25% of the costs of the trial.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Singapore Court of Appeal case regarding a property option dispute. The court found mutual termination, dismissing the claim for the option fee.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Keh Choo | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Paul Huntington Bernardo | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Won | |
| Tran Hong Hanh | Respondent, Defendant | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Judith Prakash | Judge of Appeal | No |
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | No |
| Woo Bih Li | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Ong Keh Choo claimed $316,000 as an option fee for a property.
- Paul Huntington Bernardo issued a cheque for $316,000 to Ong Keh Choo.
- Tran Hong Hanh was granted an option to purchase the property.
- The respondents learned that Ong Keh Choo was the owner of the property, not an agent.
- The respondents countermanded the cheque.
- The OTP was terminated by mutual agreement.
5. Formal Citations
- Ong Keh Choo v Paul Huntington Bernardo and another, Civil Appeal No 175 of 2019, [2020] SGCA 69
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Respondents saw an online advertisement for the sale of the Property. | |
| Respondents viewed the Property. | |
| R1 issued the Cheque in favour of “Ong Keh Choo”. | |
| The OTP was handed to R2. | |
| R2's lawyer advised her on the OTP. | |
| Respondents learned that the Appellant was the owner of the Property. | |
| R2 and the Appellant discussed amendments to the OTP. | |
| R2 asked the Appellant if the Cheque could be cancelled. | |
| Appellant deposited the Cheque for payment into her bank account. | |
| Appellant was notified by her bank that payment on the Cheque had been countermanded. | |
| Appellant’s lawyer sent a written notice of dishonour of the Cheque to R2 and demanded payment of $316,000. | |
| R2’s lawyer replied to deny liability to pay the sum. | |
| Writ of Summons against the Respondents was filed. | |
| Appellant sold the Property to another buyer for $3.682m. | |
| Suit was heard before the Judge. | |
| Judge dismissed the claim of the Appellant with costs. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Contract
- Outcome: The court found that the contract was terminated by mutual agreement, so there was no breach.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure of consideration
- Improper termination
- Misrepresentation
- Outcome: The court found that the alleged misrepresentation was not material.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Materiality of representation
- Consideration
- Outcome: The court found that there was consideration for the cheque when the OTP was handed to R2 at the third meeting.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Transactions
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Seng Swee Leng v Wong Chong Leng | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] SGCA 64 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court should be slow to disturb the findings of fact of a trial judge. |
| Ong Keh Choo v Paul Huntington Bernardo and another | High Court | No | [2019] SGHC 204 | Singapore | This is the judgment being appealed. The Court of Appeal reached the same outcome as the Judge but for a very different reason. |
| Alwie Handoyo v Tjong Very Sumito and another and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 308 | Singapore | Cited for the test of materiality in misrepresentation. |
| JEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks Bloom & Co (a firm) | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1983] 1 All ER 583 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a misrepresentation plays a real and substantial part in inducing a plaintiff to act. |
| Panatron Pte Ltd v Lee Cheow Lee | Singapore Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR(R) 435 | Singapore | Cited with approval of JEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks Bloom & Co (a firm). |
| Raiffeisen Zentralbank Osterreich AG v Archer Daniels Midland Co | High Court | Yes | [2007] 1 SLR(R) 196 | Singapore | Cited with approval of JEB Fasteners Ltd v Marks Bloom & Co (a firm). |
| Edgington v Fitzmaurice | N/A | Yes | (1885) 29 Ch D 459 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the representation must have a real and substantial effect on the representee’s mind. |
| ERA Realty Network Pte Ltd v Puspha Rajaram Lakhiani and another | High Court | No | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 721 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that unless it has been specifically expressed otherwise, the buyer’s identity is immaterial in a property transaction. |
| Woo Kah Wai and another v Chew Ai Hua Sandra and another appeal | Court of Appeal | No | [2014] 4 SLR 166 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in a normal scenario, a vendor is free to stipulate any term that he likes in an option to purchase. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Bills of Exchange Act (Cap 23, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Option to Purchase
- Option Fee
- Misrepresentation
- Consideration
- Mutual Termination
- Cheque
- Counterfoil
15.2 Keywords
- contract
- option
- property
- misrepresentation
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Contract Law | 95 |
| Misrepresentation | 60 |
| Estoppel | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Real Estate
- Civil Litigation