On September 13, 2023, a court ruling determined that a father-and-daughter duo from China, who sought a S$1.2 million refund for two failed attempts to purchase a condominium unit at The Crest, will forfeit their S$380,000 deposit. The decision was made in light of the pair’s default on payment obligations, despite claims that they were misled by their property agent.

The purchasers, Li Jialin and her father Li Suinan, argued that they should receive a full refund after discovering their property agent had embezzled funds. However, Wingcrown Investment, the developer involved and a unit of Wing Tai Holdings, maintained its right to retain the deposit as it represented 20% of the purchase price. The High Court, led by Justice Kwek Mean Luck, ruled that the forfeiture of the deposit was valid, as both transactions were terminated due to the purchasers’ failure to meet payment requirements.

The court noted that the total amount paid by the pair exceeded S$1.2 million, and Wingcrown had returned nearly S$490,000 to them. Justice Kwek also indicated that the remaining S$326,000 will be retained by Wingcrown pending further court rulings regarding potential claims for damages related to the aborted transactions.

Li alleged in her affidavit that their former agent, Liu Siyu, failed to make necessary payments on their behalf. She reported transferring approximately S$2 million to Liu between December 2015 and July 2018, but claimed that only S$1.2 million was applied towards the purchase, with additional funds directed to stamp duties.

Li lodged a police report against Liu in October 2018 after discovering the agent’s misconduct, which ultimately led to Liu’s conviction for misappropriating funds and her subsequent three-year jail sentence.

Despite the troubles faced with their agent, the court’s decision focused strictly on the contractual obligations between the purchasers and the developer. Justice Kwek confirmed that the sale and purchase agreement entailed a clause allowing the developer to retain a deposit should the transaction fail.

After the first agreement was annulled due to the payment defaults, Wingcrown issued a new option to purchase, which the father and daughter again failed to complete. Following the termination of this option, the developer retained the total sum of S$1,195,354.42, which included the forfeited deposit and the remaining balance they would have received.

In March 2023, the pair demanded the return of the entire amount paid, but Wingcrown only refunded a portion before the legal proceedings commenced. Ultimately, the court sided with the developer, reinforcing the notion that contractual agreements must be honored, despite the unfortunate circumstances surrounding the case.