Property agent gets no commission after making all-or-nothing claim
Judge says she is not entitled to the commission since she argued for the higher sum , 'no more, no less'
Eight missing words in a statement of claim cost a property agent and her company a share of the commission from a $1.3 million property sale.
In a case that had the High Court reminding lawyers of the need to follow legal procedure, Justice Choo Han Teck dismissed the company's application for an appeal, adding "this case is a tragicomedy of minor proportions".
The company Edmund Tie & Company (SEA) was also ordered by the High Court to pay $1,500 in costs.
The case revolved around a commission its agent Lim Chee Mei, who represented the buyer of the property, was supposed to receive.
She had worked out a co-broking deal with the seller's agent Fong Kok Hung, where she was to receive $13,385 or $6,225, whichever is more. But they had a spat, and she was not given anything.
Her company then took the Savills Residential agent to the State Courts to sue for $13,385, but was unsuccessful.
Its lawyers missed out eight words in the statement of claim. In leaving out "or such sum as the court deems fit", her claim became an all-or-nothing legal spat.
Mr Fong produced the original documents where he had agreed in writing to pay her a fee of $6,255 plus goods and services tax.
Another line - or 50 per cent of the commission payable by the seller to him, whichever is higher - was struck out in the original document.
This line would have entitled Ms Lim and her company to the $13,385 fee.
In Ms Lim's copy of the document, the words that would have entitled her to the higher commissions were there, but she wrote it in.
The district judge held she was not entitled to the $13,385 fee, and since she argued for the higher sum, "no more, no less", she would receive nothing.
Her company Edmund Tie then applied to the High Court for permission to appeal the case, arguing "grave injustice" had been done.
In the High Court hearing earlier this month, her lawyer Tan Bar Tien argued she should be given the $6,225 sum at the very least.
He said he had pleaded for "such further relief as the court deems fit" but the judge found this was of no help as it was sought as a separate relief meant to help facilitate any main orders.
Mr Fong's lawyer Kenny Khoo countered that Ms Lim had tied her own hands in the trial on an "all or nothing" basis.
Justice Choo said it was a "straightforward" case but procedure was not followed.
In judgement grounds issued last week, he refused the appeal, ruling the trial judge had made the correct order in not granting something she did not ask for.
Get The New Paper on your phone with the free TNP app. Download from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store now
