JWT Realty Pte. Ltd. and another v The Pod Pte. Ltd.

JWT Realty Pte. Ltd. and Leong Lou Teck (S) Pte. Ltd., the claimants, were the registered proprietors of units at 289 Beach Road, which they let to The Pod Pte. Ltd., the defendant, which ran a backpackers' hostel there. The leases were renewed in mid-2023 for a period of 5 years from 1 July 2023. Clause 2(6)(j) of the tenancy agreements required the tenant to procure the Urban Redevelopment Authority's approval for the permitted use and to bear solely the costs and expenses in relation to the application.

When the tenant applied in August 2024 to renew the hostel permission, the authority told it that any Land Betterment Charge payable to the Singapore Land Authority had to be paid before a resubmission would be accepted. The claimants signed an assumption of liability form and, in February 2025, paid $43,285 and $79,616 for a one-year permission, which they said was a goodwill payment made for the tenant. In Originating Application No 1224 of 2025 they sought those sums as damages and a declaration that the tenant was liable for the charge. The tenant counterclaimed for a declaration that the landlords were liable and for an order that they pay the charge for the full three years.

1. Whether the landlords or the tenant were liable to the Singapore Land Authority to pay the Land Betterment Charge.
2. Whether the tenancy agreements nonetheless obliged the tenant to bear the charge as a cost in relation to obtaining the planning approval.
3. Whether the declaration sought by the landlords should be granted.

Applying the purposive approach in Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General [2017] 2 SLR 850, the court held that under ss 4(2)(a) and 15(1)(a) of the Land Betterment Charge Act 2021 the owner of the fee simple, here the landlords, was liable to the authority. The authority writing to the tenant's director did not change that, and the landlords' assumption of liability notice confirmed it.

That did not stop the parties allocating the cost between themselves by contract. The phrase costs and expenses was wide and unqualified, and in ordinary language covers a government levy imposed as a precondition of approval. Because the authority made payment a precondition, the charge was a cost in relation to the approval, even though another agency collected it. The Act was already in force when the leases were signed, and an obligation to procure approval meant meeting its conditions, not merely applying. The tenant's subjective understanding, its bare assertion that there was no agreement, and the size of the later charge could not override the written terms, especially given an entire agreement clause. With no ambiguity, contra proferentem did not apply, and no implied term was needed.

A declaration was unnecessary because the judgment already resolved the dispute: the landlords were liable to the authority, and the tenant was liable to reimburse them under the leases.

The High Court allowed the landlords' application in part. It allowed their claim for damages, ordering the tenant to pay $43,285 to JWT and $79,616 to Leong Lou Teck, with contractual interest at 15% per annum and costs of $14,000 all-in. It declined to grant the landlords' declaration and rejected the tenant's counterclaim.