Lee Say Yng v Lee Cheng Mui

Facts

Lee Say Yng (the claimant) and his older sister Lee Cheng Mui (the defendant) held the family home, a semi-detached house, as tenants in common in equal shares after he transferred a half-share to her in January 2009 at their father's request. He had lived in Australia for years while she lived in the house. From 2017 he sought to move back. A dispute followed over her belongings in the room he wanted, ending on 20 January 2018 when she called the police during a meeting at the house. He rented an apartment at Corals @ Keppel Bay. In August 2021 he said he would move in when his lease ended and proposed renovations at his cost; she replied that they could not stay together and he should either buy her share or the house be sold. He renewed his lease. On her application, the court ordered a sale on 19 January 2024, and the house was sold for $6.5 million on 1 November 2024.

In Originating Claim No 867 of 2023, he sued for trespass by ouster, claiming the rent he paid elsewhere, or alternatively the rental value of his share, plus damages for inconvenience and lost time with their mother, who died on 17 May 2020. At the close of his case, the defendant submitted no case to answer and called no evidence.

Issues

1. Whether the claim was barred by laches because the claimant's interest was only equitable
2. Whether any of the four alleged incidents amounted to actual or constructive ouster
3. Whether the claim should be struck out as an abuse of process
4. What damages the claimant could recover

Holding

The High Court allowed the claim in part. It found a continuous ouster from 16 August 2021 to 11 April 2024 and awarded the claimant $146,400 for rent on his alternative accommodation, dismissed the claims for inconvenience and lost time with his mother, and reserved interest and costs.

Reasoning

Because the defendant elected to call no evidence, her affidavit was expunged and the claimant's evidence was accepted unless inherently incredible, following Ho Yew Kong v Sakae Holdings Ltd and other appeals and other matters [2018] 2 SLR 333; the court could still read the undisputed WhatsApp messages for itself.

On laches, the court found the defence contradictory. Under Tay Jui Chuan, a registered owner has good title unless someone proves an adverse interest, and the defendant proved no trust. Their father's need to ask the claimant to transfer the half-share also pointed to his full ownership. The claim was a common law one, so laches did not apply.

On ouster, each co-owner may occupy the whole. Drawing on Tan Chwee Chye v P V R M Kulandayan Chettiar [2006] 1 SLR(R) 229 and Jacobs v Seward (1872) LR 5 HL 464, actual ouster requires conduct from which exclusion can be unequivocally inferred; constructive ouster, per Goh Rosaline v Goh Nellie and others [2021] SGHC 153, covers wholly unreasonable conduct that effectively prevents residence, judged with regard to the family members' genuine feelings. The locked door and belongings in 2017 to 2018 were not ouster: he got into the room and stayed there, and she had genuine reasons and offered mediation. Calling the police was a one-off response, on his own admission, to his slamming the table. But the August 2021 messages were a plain refusal: he could move in only if he bought her out. Her later solicitors' emails of 11 April 2024 said he was at liberty to reside there subject to safeguards that were reasonable given the acrimony, which ended the ouster. The court doubted that his April 2024 request was genuine.

The strike-out argument, raised only at the close of his case, failed; the messages showed a genuine dispute and the claimant was credible.

On damages, following Cavenagh Investment Pte Ltd v Kaushik Rajiv [2013] 2 SLR 543, he could elect compensatory loss and did so. The ouster caused his lease renewals from 12 November 2021, and he did not fail to mitigate: the defendant bore that burden and led no evidence, and the expert called the apartments above average but not high end. Rent at $4,200 and then $6,000 a month was recoverable for the ouster period. The claim for lost time with his mother had no legal basis and predated any ouster, and inconvenience was not quantified.

From the judgment