A NEWLY engaged woman who bought an S$18.68 million Good Class Bungalow (GCB) sued her real estate agency, alleging that its agent had falsely represented to her that the entire land area of 12,454 sq ft could be fully redeveloped.

After paying S$934,000 for the right to buy the property, Jane Lam and her father discovered there was a drainage reserve of 278.8 sq ft on the property that could not be redeveloped.

Her father, Patrick Lam, is the founder of boutique property developer JBE Holdings.

In her lawsuit against the agency, Realstar Premier Group, Jane Lam contended the agent should be held responsible for passing on a marketing brochure from the seller that she claimed had painted a false picture of the property’s redevelopment potential.

She claimed she suffered losses amounting to S$418,160.76, which was derived by using the purchase price divided by the proportion of the area of the property that could not be used for redevelopment.

The High Court dismissed her negligent misrepresentation suit on Dec 5, saying that any false impression that the entire land area could be redeveloped was a “misimpression on her part”.

A NEWSLETTER FOR YOU

Tuesday, 12 pm

Property Insights

Get an exclusive analysis of real estate and property news in Singapore and beyond.

Sign Up

In her written judgment, Senior Judge Lai Siu Chiu added that in the present case, the property agent’s role was limited to that of a conduit in passing the brochure to her.

The agent’s standard of care did not require him to independently verify the contents of the brochure, said Justice Lai.

The agent, Darren Teo, first got to know Patrick Lam in July 2021.

On Dec 14, 2021, Teo told Patrick Lam that the property on Lewis Road, off Bukit Timah Road, was for sale for the negotiable price of S$21 million.

The next day, both daughter and father met Teo to view the external compound of the property; they were not allowed access to the house.

The seller’s property agent, Gregory Tan, was also present.

Teo sent Patrick Lam a link to access the soft copy of a brochure comprising a site plan, a map, photographs of the external compound, and a page depicting three potential layouts when the property is redeveloped.

The Lams claimed that he had also shown them a hard copy, but Teo disputed this.

Jane Lam offered S$18.68 million for the property, and paid S$186,800 for an option to purchase it. The offer was accepted by the seller on the same day.

On Dec 29, 2021, Ms Lam paid S$747,200 to exercise the option to purchase.

On Jan 7, 2022, the Lams discovered via an e-mail from their lawyers that there was a drainage reserve of 25.9 sq m, or 278.8 sq ft, on the property.

After checking with their architect, the Lams learnt that the drainage reserve could not be used in any redevelopment.

On Jan 13, 2022, the Lams were allowed inside the house and saw the drainage reserve for the first time.

In her suit, Jane Lam alleged that Teo had made false representations – via the brochure – that the entire land area could be fully redeveloped, as no drainage reserve was indicated on the layouts.

She asserted that he had breached his duty of care as a property agent to ensure that the facts affecting the value of the property were represented accurately and truthfully to her, and that Realstar is vicariously liable for his breach.

But Realstar contended that the brochure does not contain the alleged misrepresentation. The agency argued that even if there was misrepresentation, such representation was made by the seller or the seller’s agent.

In her judgement, Justice Lai disagreed with the plaintiff’s argument that the brochure implied the entire 12,454 sq ft of the property could be used for redevelopment.

The judge considered that Teo had no knowledge of any drainage reserve.

It appeared that even Tan, who had prepared the brochure, was unaware of the drainage reserve, said Justice Lai. THE STRAITS TIMES