[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – A temple that sued another temple in the same complex for obstructing its annual religious celebrations lost its case in High Court.
The lawsuit filed by the Tuan Kong Beo Temple (Teochew) centered on a 2011 agreement between it and the Tian Kong Buddhist Temple over the use of their joint facilities in North Bedok.
A district judge had previously concluded that the agreement was legally binding and ruled in favor of the Teochew temple.
But Judge Choo Han Teck reversed the decision on Friday (December 11).
In a written judgment, he said the district judge made a mistake in deciding the case based on particular legal doctrine that was not featured in the Teochew temple lawsuit.
The temple “cannot trust what it has not alleged, and must bear the consequences of its own mistakes,” Judge Choo said.
He said this was “unfortunate” because the Teochew temple could have been successful if the relevant facts had been alleged and proven at trial.
However, ordering a retrial would entitle the Teochew temple to a second try, which would be “grossly unfair” to the other side.
“If this were allowed, the courts would be inundated with new trials of failed litigants,” added the judge.
The two temples operated in Pulau Tekong until the 1980s, when the government relocated residents to the mainland. Both temples received compensation and were allocated land to allow devotees to continue worshiping.
In 2011, negotiations to form a new temple body led to an agreement that, among other things, stated that the Teochew temple would be allowed to conduct all religious activities. However, in 2016 disagreements arose over the use of the facilities.
The Teochew Temple filed a lawsuit in 2018, arguing that the Tian Kong Buddhist Temple had prevented it from holding major events at the facility.
He alleged that Tian Kong President Chin Tiam Soy parked his car in the area where the tent for the event would be set up.
He also complained that Mr. Chin had closed the front door to hinder the contractor and impede the use of electricity and water.
These acts forced a reduction in celebrations in 2016 and 2017, and they were moved to another location in 2018 and 2019.
The Teochew Temple argued that under the 2011 agreement, it was allowed to conduct these activities on the premises.
Tian Kong questioned the validity of the agreement, arguing that Chin was not authorized by his trustees or board members to sign it.
In August, a district judge determined that Chin had “apparent authority” to sign the agreement and that Tian Kong was bound by it.
Tian Kong appealed to the High Court.
Attorney Lim Chee San argued that the district judge erred in issuing a ruling based on the doctrine of apparent authority when the Teochew temple failed to defend this claim in its lawsuit or present evidence to support it.
Judge Choo agreed, noting that the failure to allege this claim caused injury to Tian Kong, who did not have the opportunity to mount a response.
“I disagree with the district judge’s conclusion that (the Teochew temple) was entitled to rely on the doctrine of apparent authority, although I acknowledge that this could have been a strong case of apparent authority, had it been so. “said the judge. Choo.
[ad_2]
