Sin Chiau Soon v Aitken Robert Bond

Facts

Mr Sin Chiau Soon and Mr Aitken Robert Bond, former business partners, bought an industrial unit at Tagore 8 in 2018 as tenants-in-common in equal shares, with a mortgage loan on which both were borrowers. They leased it to a related company, Transcal Pte Ltd, and the rent covered the mortgage. After the relationship soured, the company paid rent late from May 2022, terminated Mr Sin's employment in February 2023, and stopped paying rent from March 2023. From July 2023 Mr Bond stopped paying his share of the mortgage, property tax, management fees and insurance, leaving Mr Sin to pay everything. Mr Bond would not agree to sell or re-let the unit.

Mr Sin applied in Originating Application No 1323 of 2024 for an order for sale, later asking for sole conduct of it. Mr Bond argued that the court had no power to order a sale, relying on Tan Poh Beng v Choo Lei Mei [2014] 4 SLR 462, and alternatively asked to obtain his own valuation. Chua Lee Ming J allowed the application, and these are his grounds, given after Mr Bond appealed.

Issues

1. Whether the court had power under paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 to order the sale of co-owned land without some other substantive legal basis.
2. Whether it was necessary or expedient to order a sale of the property.
3. What directions should govern the sale, including conduct, valuation and reimbursement of expenses.

Holding

The judge granted the application with modifications. Mr Sin was given sole conduct of the sale, with duties to keep Mr Bond updated, and Mr Bond was at liberty to apply. Mr Bond could obtain a fresh valuation, the sale price floor being the higher of the two valuations, with his valuation paid from the proceeds only if it was the higher one. Mr Bond was ordered to reimburse $98,166.59 by 15 April 2025, failing which it would be deducted with interest at 5.33% per annum from his share, and both were to share ongoing payments equally. Mr Bond was ordered to pay costs of $8,000 plus disbursements.

Reasoning

The judge respectfully disagreed with Tan Poh Beng. Paragraph 2 has two separate limbs, divided by a semi-colon and once found in separate sections of older codes: a power to order sale instead of partition in a partition action, and a power to order sale in any cause or matter relating to land where necessary or expedient. Tan Poh Beng had merged the two. The provision is not procedural and requires no other legal basis, only that a sale be necessary or expedient, which is consistent with Abu Bakar v Jawahir and others [1993] 1 SLR(R) 865 and the Court of Appeal's description of it as a general power. Tan Poh Beng was confined to its facts, which in substance sought to enforce a Malaysian order on a sale already completed. Rule 7(1) of Order 13 of the Rules of Court 2021 is a procedural rule for interim sales and did not apply to a sale in lieu of partition.

Mr Bond accepted that if the power existed a sale should follow. In any event a sale was clearly necessary and expedient: he refused to pay or cooperate, Mr Sin remained exposed as a joint borrower, and foreclosure was a risk. The second limb was also engaged because Mr Sin sought contribution between co-owners.

Sole conduct suited a case where cooperation could not realistically be expected. The judge found Mr Bond had intentionally delayed matters and made himself hard to reach. The reimbursement figure was half of the undisputed $196,333.17 Mr Sin had paid since July 2023.

From the judgment