Court Clarifies Power to Order Sale of Co-Owned Property
Yuen Law represented the applicant in a significant High Court decision that clarifies the jurisdictional basis for ordering the sale of co-owned property in Singapore. In Sin Chiau Soon v Aitken Robert Bond [2025] SGHC 94, the Court held that it may order the sale of land jointly owned by disputing parties even in the absence of a separate legal cause of action, provided the statutory requirements under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 2020 (“SCJA 2020”) are satisfied.
This decision offers significant guidance on the legal avenues available to co-owners seeking to exit untenable arrangements, and reaffirms the Court’s broad discretion to craft pragmatic and effective remedies in resolving co-ownership deadlocks.
Background
The dispute concerned an industrial unit, co-owned by the applicant and respondent as tenants-in-common in equal shares. The property was purchased as part of their commercial collaboration, with the intention that it would be leased to a related company.
Following the breakdown of their business relationship, the company defaulted on rental payments. The respondent stopped contributing to ongoing property expenses, including mortgage repayments and property taxes.
Despite repeated efforts, the respondent refused to cooperate in either selling or leasing out the property to a third party. As a result, the applicant bore the full financial burden of maintaining the property while remaining exposed as a joint borrower under the mortgage.
Application Before the High Court
The applicant brought proceedings seeking an order for sale of the property and reimbursement of expenses he had borne on the respondent’s behalf. He further sought to be granted sole conduct of the sale and reimbursement of the sums he had paid on the respondent’s behalf since July 2023.
Key Issue Before the Court
The key issue was whether the Court had jurisdiction under paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the SCJA 2020 to order the sale of co-owned property, without requiring the applicant to bring a separate legal cause of action.
The respondent relied on Tan Poh Beng v Choo Lei Mei [2014] SGHC 163, in which the Court appeared to conflate the two distinct limbs of paragraph 2. At Paragraph 19 of that decision, the Court required there to be a “cause or matter relating to land” — a requirement that, in fact, appears only in the second limb of the provision.
In the present case, the High Court clarified that paragraph 2 contains two independent jurisdictional grounds:
- First limb: In an action for partition, the Court may order a sale of the land instead of dividing it physically. This limb does not require any additional legal dispute or cause of action. A co-owner of land may apply for such an order, and the Court has the jurisdiction to grant it under this limb.
- Second limb: In any cause or matter relating to land, the Court may order the land or part thereof, if it is necessary or expedient for the purposes of the pending proceedings.
The Court distinguished the facts of Tan Poh Beng, noting that the case did not directly engage the scope of the Court’s jurisdiction under paragraph 2. The main issue was whether a foreign ancillary order for the division of matrimonial assets situated in Singapore could be recognised and enforced, rather than a live dispute between parties over co-owned land.
In reaffirming its jurisdiction under paragraph 2, the Court held that paragraph 2 is not merely procedural. It confers substantive powers on the Court to order the sale of land, either in an action for partition under the first limb, or more broadly in any land-related cause or matter under the second limb. The Court also drew reference to Abu Bakar v Jawahir and others [1993], where it observed that there was no common law right to compel partition. The English Partition Acts of 1539 and 1540 granted co-owners a right to partition, and the English Partition Acts of 1868 and 1876 empowered the court to order a sale instead of partition. Notably, the exercise of these powers was not contingent on the existence of a separate cause of action.
On the facts, the Court found that it was expedient and necessary to order a sale in lieu of partition as the parties’ relationship had irretrievably broken down. The respondent had ceased financial contributions, rejects proposal to sell or rent the property. The applicant remained liable under the mortgage, and the risk of foreclosure loomed. A clean break was both necessary and expedient. The Court therefore ordered the sale of the property under its statutory powers.
Orders Granted
Justice Chua Lee Ming allowed the application and ordered the sale of the property, with the following orders:
- Sole conduct of sale: The applicant was granted sole conduct of the sale, given the respondent’s obstructionist conduct. However, the applicant was required to update the respondent within three working days on key matters, such as the appointment of agents and offers received.
- Valuation: The respondent was permitted to obtain a fresh independent valuation within one month. The property is to be sold at no less than the higher of the two valuations. The cost of the valuation would be borne by the respondent unless it turned out to be higher than the applicant’s, in which case it would be paid from the sale proceeds.
- Reimbursement and contribution: The respondent was ordered to reimburse the applicant $98,166.59 for his half-share of past expenses. If not paid by the stipulated deadline, the amount (plus 5.33% interest) would be deducted from the respondent’s share of the sale proceeds.
- Ongoing expenses: Both parties were to share ongoing payments (e.g., mortgage, MCST fees) equally. If a party failed to contribute, the shortfall (plus interest and penalties) would similarly be deducted from their share.
- Legal Costs: The respondent was also ordered to pay $8,000 in costs, plus disbursements.
Conclusion
This decision confirms that co-owners in Singapore can ask the Court to order the sale of jointly owned property without needing a separate legal claim. The Supreme Court of Judicature Act 2020 gives judges flexible powers to resolve deadlocked co-ownership situations quickly and fairly.
For anyone stuck in a co-ownership dispute where cooperation has broken down, this ruling offers a practical path to a “clean break.” It also provides helpful guidance on how courts balance fairness, financial responsibility, and finality when structuring sale orders.
As of the publication date, 18 June 2025, the case is currently pending an appeal.
Our Involvement
Yuen Law represented the successful applicant in this important case. The applicants were represented by Lim Fung Peen, Chua Hong Hui, Kong Hui Xin, Annette, and Lim Huilin Cheryl.
We regularly advise clients on co-ownership disputes arising from joint ventures, family arrangements, and property investments. If you are facing a deadlock or dispute over co-owned property, we can provide practical, strategic advice to help you exit deadlocked situations and protect your rights.
