TAN TIEN SEK v TAN TIEN SAI

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 81 consider?

The judgment refers to Civil Law Act (Cap 43) and Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 81 High Court (General Division) 31 March 2023 HC/S 108/2021 57 min read

13 cases cited (12 SG, 1 foreign)

Outcome

Claim dismissed

I dismiss the claim.

Source: [2023] SGHC 81, High Court (General Division), decided 31 March 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	31 March 2023
Judge	Teh Hwee Hwee
Charges / claim	Contract
Outcome	Claim dismissed
Counsel	Fernandez LLC, Shook Lin & Bok LLP, Joseph Tay Weiwen, Lai Wei Kang Louis, Mohamed Arshad bin Mohamed Tahir, Patrick Fernandez, Tan Kah Wai, Tan Wei Sze

Source: [2023] SGHC 81, High Court (General Division), decided 31 March 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Contract — Contractual terms — Oral agreement Contract — Contractual terms — Parol evidence rule Contract — Consideration — Failure of consideration Contract — Intention to create legal relations — Sham Contract — Formalities — Evidenced in writing — Part performance

Practice Areas

Contract

Judges (1)

Teh Hwee Hwee Delivered

Counsel (8)

Fernandez LLC Firm Shook Lin & Bok LLP Firm Joseph Tay Weiwen Counsel Defendant Lai Wei Kang Louis Counsel Defendant Mohamed Arshad bin Mohamed Tahir Counsel Plaintiff Patrick Fernandez Counsel Plaintiff Tan Kah Wai Counsel Defendant Tan Wei Sze Counsel Defendant

Parties (2)

Tan Tien Sai Defendant Tan Tien Sek Plaintiff

Case Significance

Tan Tien Sek v Tan Tien Sai [2023] SGHC 81 was decided by Teh Hwee Hwee JC in the General Division of the High Court, Suit No 108 of 2021, with judgment reserved and delivered on 31 March 2023. The dispute was between two brothers over a property at One Tree Hill that their late father had gifted them decades earlier, in the proportion of 10% to the plaintiff and 90% to the defendant. In 2000 the plaintiff transferred his one-tenth share to the defendant through three written documents; he claimed the transfer rested on an oral undertaking that the defendant would pay him the monetary value of the share once the property was sold, raising issues on the parol evidence rule, sham and failure of consideration.

[2023] SGHC 81 explained

TAN TIEN SEK v TAN TIEN SAI ([2023] SGHC 81) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 31 March 2023. It is categorised under Contract. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 81 about?

TAN TIEN SEK v TAN TIEN SAI ([2023] SGHC 81) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Contract — Contractual terms — Oral agreement”, “Contract — Contractual terms — Parol evidence rule”, “Contract — Consideration — Failure of consideration”, and “Contract — Intention to create legal relations — Sham”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 81 consider?

The judgment refers to Civil Law Act (Cap 43) and Evidence Act (Cap 97). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

This was a dispute between two brothers over a One Tree Hill property, where the plaintiff had transferred his 10% share to the defendant in 2000 through written documents. The plaintiff claimed the transfer relied on an oral undertaking to pay him the share's value once the property was sold, and that the documents were a sham. The High Court dismissed the claim, finding he had proved neither the oral undertaking nor that the documents were a sham.

What was Tan Tien Sek v Tan Tien Sai [2023] SGHC 81 about?

The case was a dispute between two brothers over a One Tree Hill property gifted by their late father, 10% to the plaintiff and 90% to the defendant. The plaintiff claimed an oral undertaking that his one-tenth share's value would be paid on sale. Teh Hwee Hwee JC heard it.

What documents did the plaintiff execute in Tan Tien Sek v Tan Tien Sai ([2023] SGHC 81)?

In 2000 the plaintiff transferred his one-tenth share to the defendant by executing three documents: a sale and purchase agreement dated 10 May 2000, a statutory declaration dated 11 May 2000, and a transfer document dated 6 July 2000.