Judgment Header
Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159
Loading…
[2014] SGHC 159
General Division of the High Court of Singapore11 Aug 2014Suit No 663 of 2011
Published judgment text with court metadata, source links, and stable paragraph anchors.
Cited in 10 later decisions. No negative treatment detected.
Citations and treatment detected automatically from later judgments and the authorities this decision relies on.
Later cases and laws citing this decision
“that expected of a reasonably competent and diligent conveyancing solicitor (Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159 (“Su Ah Tee”) at [70]). The ambit of a solicitor’s duty depends on the retainer and the particular circum”
“Finally, I also found the decision of Belinda Ang Saw Ean J in Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159 (“Su Ah Tee”) to be of assistance. As will be seen below, it is relevant not just to the instant issue of whether a dut”
“she was a property agent (Judgment (HC) at [107]). This decision was based on Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159, which the Judge found to be a decision on an analogous situation. It had been held there that property”
“evidence before it is incomplete. The authority cited for this proposition is Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159 (“Su Ah Tee”). I therefore consulted that case for guidance on the exercise of my discretion whether to”
“f the solicitor’s duty of care has been repeated in other local cases such as Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159 at [70].”
“g on or forwarding false information from another. One example is the case of Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159 (“Su Ah Tee”) at [209]–[212]. In Su Ah Tee, the plaintiffs claimed damages for breach of contract and ne”
“how she derived the figure of 5%, Ms Lim relies on the High Court decision of Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159 (“Su Ah Tee”), in which the court apportioned 5% of the liability there to a property agent for negligen”
“puted that a duty of care exists between an estate agent and a purchaser (see Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159 (“Su Ah Tee”) at [214]–[217]), and that such a duty of care finds legislative expression in the Estate A”
“I draw an analogy to the case of Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159 where Belinda Ang Saw Ean J (as she then was) found that the salesperson breached his duty of care because he “chose to accept what Cheng [the seller”
“In Su Ah Tee v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and anor (William Cheng and ors, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159 (“Su Ah Tee”) at [73] to [76], a crucial reason for the High Court’s refusal to make any findings in respect of one out of three allegations of breach of duty the plaintiffs levelled against the d”
Earlier cases and laws this decision relies on
No outgoing citations detected.
Auto-detected from judgment text; not a substitute for a citator check.
Judgment Header
Su Ah Tee and others v Allister Lim and Thrumurgan (sued as a firm) and another (William Cheng and others, third parties) [2014] SGHC 159
Case Metadata
Case No: Suit No 663 of 2011
Case Metadata
Court: General Division of the High Court of Singapore
Case Metadata
Decision Date: 2014-08-11
Wrong text, a broken link, out-of-date content, or a removal request — tell us and we'll check it against the official source.