TAN TIEN SEK v TAN TIEN SAI

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

13 cases cited (12 SG, 1 foreign) Cited by 1 case

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 for the defendant Lai Wei Kang Louis Counsel for the defendant Mohamed Arshad bin Mohamed Tahir Counsel for the plaintiff Patrick Fernandez Counsel for the plaintiff Tan Kah Wai Counsel for the defendant Tan Wei Sze Counsel for the 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.

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.