Lim Hock Siang

On the court record

Lim Hock Siang appears in the corpus in housing-development and construction disputes, argued in the Court of Appeal (Mahkamah Rayuan). Two related appeals, appearing for the respondent in one and the appellant in the other, arose from the late delivery of vacant possession of accommodation suites in a development and from claims relating to goods and services tax and late-payment interest on the sales and purchases. The pivotal question was whether the purchasers could rely on Schedule H of the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966: the court held that, despite the land's commercial zoning, the suites were intended for human habitation and therefore fell within the Housing Development Act, so that Schedule H applied and any inconsistent terms in the sale agreements were void; the purchasers' appeals were allowed, the High Court having erred. That holding is a significant illustration of the courts' willingness to look at the true character and use of a property rather than its zoning label in deciding whether the protective housing legislation is engaged. A third matter, appearing for the appellant, was a construction dispute under a PAM Contract 2006, concerning delay and liquidated ascertained damages, non-compliance with the works schedule, whether the contractor was in breach, whether the termination of the contract was unlawful, a counterclaim for unpaid works and the final account, the contractor's entitlement, the commencement and completion dates and conditions precedent, and the evidential treatment of delay including reliance on res ipsa loquitur. The two housing appeals turn on a point of real practical consequence for buyers of hybrid developments: a developer cannot contract out of the protections in Schedule H simply by pointing to the commercial zoning of the land, because it is the intended use of the accommodation for human habitation that engages the Housing Development Act, and any term of the sale agreement inconsistent with the statutory schedule is void. The construction appeal, by contrast, shows the same counsel working through the detailed contractual and evidential machinery of a standard-form building contract. Across the appearances the practice combines the consumer-protection dimension of housing-development law with the contractual and evidential complexities of standard-form construction contracts.