This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
In the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
[1998] SGHC 290
Suit 917/1997
Between
Metro Parking (S) Pte Ltd |
… Plaintiff
And
Young Women's Christian Association of Singapore |
… Defendant
grounds of decision
This judgment is subject to final editorial corrections approved by the court and/or redaction pursuant to the publisher’s duty in compliance with the law, for publication in LawNet and/or the Singapore Law Reports. |
Metro Parking (S) Pte Ltd v Young Women's Christian Association of Singapore
[1998] SGHC 290
Suit 917/1997
Amarjeet Singh JC
31 August 1998
Amarjeet Singh JC
31 August 1998
1
Judgment :
Judgment :
2 Cur Adv Vult
3 1. The Plaintiffs are car park operators for profit.
4
5
6
7
8 5. The Plaintiffs’ case was that by letter dated 15 March 1996Offer
to Lease which contained certain skeletal clauses. Importantly, according to cl
1.0
Cl 2.0 the rental was to be $18,000/- p.a. ($1,500/- p.m.).
to Lease which contained certain skeletal clauses. Importantly, according to cl
1.0
Cl 2.0 the rental was to be $18,000/- p.a. ($1,500/- p.m.).
9 22 May 1996Offer to Lease
10 5.2 There then followed a meeting and discussion on 4 June 1996
11 5.3 Following the meeting, the Plaintiffs wrote to the Defendants on 6
June 1996
‘Offer to Lease’ remained the same. The letter enclosed a document with sample
clauses on the above and ended on the note:
June 1996
‘Offer to Lease’ remained the same. The letter enclosed a document with sample
clauses on the above and ended on the note:
12 5.4 Thereafter, on 13 June 1996
13 Dear Sir
14 THE FORT CANNING YWCA
15 CAR PARK LEASE AGREEMENT
16 With warmest regards,
17 Yours faithfully,
18 The Fort Canning YWCA
19 Sgd.
20 James Chee
21 5.5 The Plaintiffs thereafter undercover of their letter dated 20
June 1996 responded by forwarding a Draft Lease Agreement
June 1996 responded by forwarding a Draft Lease Agreement
22 5.6 The Defendants responded on 9 July 1996 to the Draft
Lease Agreement
Lease Agreement
23 (i) Added as Cl 2.02
24 (ii) Added as Clause 3.02
25 ‘30/7/96’ to her on top of the Defendants’ letter dated 9
July 1996 asking her:
July 1996 asking her:
26 ‘Pls enquire on update’
27
30/7’
28 Png Geok Puah was then one of the Defendants’ employees.
29 Draft Lease AgreementAB79 - 97) incorporating 9 July 1996 to the Plaintiffs.
30 24 September 1996
31 Amendment
Item 4
32 2) Clause 3.02
33
34
35
negotiations
36 ‘Report of
the YWCA Building Committee to the Board of Management for October 1996’
the YWCA Building Committee to the Board of Management for October 1996’
37
38
39
40 Klerk-Elias Liza v K T Chan
Clinic Pte Ltd [1993] 2 SLR 102
Clinic Pte Ltd [1993] 2 SLR 102
41
42
43 after
44
‘Could you now proceed to prepare a draft agreement incorporating
all terms and conditions of both letters to finalise
all terms and conditions of both letters to finalise
45 draft draft incorporateddraft. In my opinion, if the draft
finalisation Klerk-Elias Liza v K T Chan Clinic Pte Ltd draft draftEdinburgh Street Tramways Co v Torbain [1877] 3App.Cas.58,68:
finalisation Klerk-Elias Liza v K T Chan Clinic Pte Ltd draft draftEdinburgh Street Tramways Co v Torbain [1877] 3App.Cas.58,68:
46
47
"We are pleased to forward herewith a Draft perusal." (emphasis added)
48 12.3 On 9 July 1996
49 Re: The Fort Canning YWCA Car Parking Draft Agreement
(i) "We refer to the above draft agreement."
finalise the above." (emphasis added)
50 12.4 On 12 July 1996, the Plaintiffs’ further response was:
discuss the contents of the Draft
51
52
Re: The Fort Canning YWCA - Draft Lease Agreement(i) "We write further to the draftth September 1996." conclusion of this agreement." (emphasis added)
53 12.7 There was no response from the Plaintiffs to this letter.
54
55 subject to Lessors’ agreement
56 subject to
Lessors’ agreement and finally
Lessors’ agreement and finally
57 20%40%
58
59 13
June 199613 June 1996
June 199613 June 1996
A: No. We are accommodating them.
60 draft
61
62
63 draft
64
65
66 Dated this 31st day of August 1998
67 AMARJEET SINGH
Amarjeet Singh JC |
Ee Hock Hoe Adrian (Ramdas & Wong) for the plaintiffs
Ng Chon Hsing (Michael Khoo & Partners) for the defendants
Ng Chon Hsing (Michael Khoo & Partners) for the defendants
This judgment text has undergone conversion so that it is mobile and web-friendly. This may have created formatting or alignment issues. Please refer to the PDF copy for a print-friendly version.
Version No 1: 11 Sep 2026 (01:05 hrs)