Case Details
- Citation: [2012] SGCA 48
- Court: Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore
- Decision Date: 2012-08-27
- Coram: Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, V K Rajah JA
- Plaintiff/Applicant: HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd (trustee of Starhill Global Real Estate Investment Trust)
- Defendant/Respondent: Toshin Development Singapore Pte Ltd
- Area of Law: CONTRACT, CIVIL PROCEDURE, LANDLORD AND TENANT
- Judgment Length: 25 pages (14,763 words)
Summary
2011 Decision Date : 27 August 2012 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chan Sek Keong CJ; Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA; V K Rajah JA Counsel Name(s) : Alvin Yeo SC, Sim Bock Eng, Tan Mei Yen, Lawrence Foo and Lim Shiqi (WongPartnership LLP) for the appellant; Cavinder Bull SC, Gerui Lim, Adam Maniam (Drew & Napier LLC) for the respondent. Parties : HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd (trustee of Starhill Global Real Estate Investment Trust) — Toshin Development Singapore Pte Lt
HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd (trustee of Starhill Global Real Estate Investment Trust) v Toshin Development Singapore Pte Ltd [2012] SGCA 48 Case Number : Civil Appeal No 108 of 2011 Decision Date : 27 August 2012 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chan Sek Keong CJ; Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA; V K Rajah JA Counsel Name(s) : Alvin Yeo SC, Sim Bock Eng, Tan Mei Yen, Lawrence Foo and Lim Shiqi (WongPartnership LLP) for the appellant; Cavinder Bull SC, Gerui Lim, Adam Maniam (Drew & Napier LLC) for the respondent.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
4 The Appellant is the trustee of Starhill Global Real Estate Investment Trust, which is in turn managed by YTL Starhill Global REIT Management Limited. The Demised Premises consist of six floors of Ngee Ann City (namely, Basement 2 to Level 4), which are all part of the shopping centre managed by the Respondent. 5 The lease granted by the Appellant to the Respondent is for a 20-year term expiring on 7 June 2013, with the Respondent possessing an option to renew the lease for a further 12 years.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The central legal questions in this case concerned CONTRACT, CIVIL PROCEDURE, LANDLORD AND TENANT. The court was tasked with determining the applicable legal principles and their application to the specific facts before it.
In reaching its decision, the court reviewed 3 prior authorities, carefully analysing how earlier decisions had addressed similar legal questions and whether those principles should be applied, distinguished, or developed further in the present case.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
Is the express term obliging the Parties to in good faith endeavour to agree on the new rent valid? 32 By enjoining the Parties to “in good faith endeavour to agree on the prevailing market rental value of the Demised Premises”, [note: 38] which is to be the new rent for each new rental term after the first rental term, Clause 2.4(c)(i) imposes an obligation on the Parties, under Stage One of the Rent Review Mechanism, to conduct negotiations on the new rent in good faith.
What Was the Outcome?
72 For the reasons given above, this appeal is dismissed. However, in the light of the questionable conduct of both of the Parties that has in turn stoked sterile litigation, we order that each of the Parties is to bear its own costs for all the proceedings here and below. The Appellant’s appeal deposit should be returned. [note: 1] See Core Bundle Vol II (Part 1) at p 31. [note: 2] Ibid. [note: 3] See Core Bundle Vol II (Part 1) at pp 31–33. [note: 4] See Core Bundle Vol II (Part 1) at p 31. [note: 5] Ibid. [note: 6] See Core Bundle Vol II (Part 1) at p 32. [note: 7] The Toshin valuations are summarised at Core Bundle Vol II (Part 2), pp 242–245.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This judgment is significant for the development of CONTRACT, CIVIL PROCEDURE, LANDLORD AND TENANT law in Singapore. It provides authoritative guidance from the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore on the interpretation and application of the relevant legal principles in this area.
Legal professionals, academics, and students may find this judgment instructive in understanding how Singapore courts approach questions of CONTRACT, CIVIL PROCEDURE, LANDLORD AND TENANT. The decision also illustrates the court's methodology in weighing evidence, applying statutory provisions, and exercising judicial discretion.
Cases Cited
- [2010] SGHC 92
- [2012] SGCA 48
- [2012] SGHC 8
Source Documents
Detailed Analysis of the Judgment
HSBC Institutional Trust Services (Singapore) Ltd (trustee of Starhill Global Real Estate Investment Trust) v Toshin Development Singapore Pte Ltd [2012] SGCA 48 Case Number : Civil Appeal No 108 of 2011 Decision Date : 27 August 2012 Tribunal/Court : Court of Appeal Coram : Chan Sek Keong CJ; Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA; V K Rajah JA Counsel Name(s) : Alvin Yeo SC, Sim Bock Eng, Tan Mei Yen, Lawrence Foo and Lim Shiqi (WongPartnership LLP) for the appellant; Cavinder Bull SC, Gerui Lim, Adam Maniam (Drew & Napier LLC) for the respondent.
Procedural History
This matter came before the Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore by way of appeal. The judgment was delivered on 2012-08-27 by Chan Sek Keong CJ, Andrew Phang Boon Leong JA, V K Rajah JA. The court considered the submissions of both parties, reviewed the evidence, and examined the relevant authorities before arriving at its decision.
The full judgment runs to 25 pages (14,763 words), reflecting the thoroughness of the court's analysis. The court's reasoning engages with questions of CONTRACT, CIVIL PROCEDURE, LANDLORD AND TENANT, and the decision is likely to be of interest to practitioners and scholars working in these areas of Singapore law.
This article summarises and analyses [2012] SGCA 48 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers are encouraged to consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.