Introduction

The courts have the power to order the sale of real property in a variety of situations. Such court-ordered sales typically occur in cases involving matrimonial breakdown, co-ownership disputes or insolvency, where the property must be liquidated to resolve legal or financial issues and to ensure fairness between the parties involved.

Matrimonial Proceedings

In the context of divorce or matrimonial proceedings, the Women’s Charter empowers the Family Justice Courts to divide matrimonial assets fairly. This includes the matrimonial home, which is often the most significant asset in the marriage. Section 112 of the Women’s Charter in Singapore provides the legal framework for the division of matrimonial assets upon divorce.

Co-Ownership Disputes

Where two or more individuals co-own a property—whether as joint tenants or tenants-in-common—disagreements can arise regarding its use, retention, or sale. Under the Supreme Court of Judicature Act (SCJA), the Court may exercise its power of sale when the co-owners cannot reach consensus.

In Sin Chiau Soon v Aitken Robert Bond [2025] SGHC 94, The learned judge was of the view that the same test “necessary or expedient” applies to both the first limb and the second limb of paragraph 2 of the First Schedule SCJA 2020. Applying Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another [2016] 3 SLR 1222, the court conducted a balancing exercise of various factors.

It was held that the Court’s power to order a sale of property is not contingent on there being a substantive legal basis to justify the exercise of that power.  The case of Tan Poh Beng v Choo Lei Mei [2014] 4 SLR 462 was not followed. Sin Chiau Soon’s case is pending appeal.

The Court’s power to order the sale of the Property under the SCJA 2020

Section 18(2) read with paragraph 2 of the First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) (“SCJA 2020”) provides that the General Division of the High Court has the following powers:

Partition and sale in lieu of partition

Power to partition land and to direct a sale instead of partition in any action for partition of land; and in any cause or matter relating to land, where it appears necessary or expedient, to order the land or any part of it to be sold, and to give all necessary and consequential directions.

Order 13 rule 7(1) of the Rules of Court 2021 (“ROC 2021”) states:7 —(1) Where any immovable property is in issue in any action, the Court may order the immovable property to be sold or dealt with in any manner that is appropriate before the trial or hearing.

It is submitted that the learned Judge in Sin Chiau Soon’s case was correct to find that there is nothing in paragraph 2 of the First Schedule SCJA 2020 that imposes any requirement for some other substantive legal basis.

In Sin Chiau Soon v Aitken Robert Bond [2025] SGHC 94, the 2 owners held the industrial unit as tenants-in-common in equal shares. The judge said that “it was clearly necessary and expedient to order a sale of the Property”. The relevant factors considered included

• dispute between the co-owners
• the respondent’s refusal to pay the expenses relating to the Property
• the risk to the joint borrower under the mortgage loan
• the respondent’s refusal to sell the Property
• the Property was at risk of being foreclosed by the bank
• no undue hardship or prejudice to the respondent

In Su Emmanuel v Emmanuel Priya Ethel Anne and another [2016] 3 SLR 1222 the Court of Appeal held that

a) In deciding whether it is necessary or expedient for a sale to be ordered in lieu of partition, the court conducts a balancing exercise of various factors, including (i) the state of the relationship between the parties (which would be indicative of whether they are likely to be able to co-operate in the future); (ii) the state of the property; and (iii) the prospect of the relationship between the parties deteriorating if a sale was not granted such that a “clean-break” would be preferable.

b) Regard should be had to the potential prejudice that the various co-owners might face in each of the possible scenarios, namely, if a sale is granted and if it is not granted.

c) A sale would not generally be ordered if to do so would violate a prior agreement between the co-owners concerning the manner in which the land may be disposed of.

In Su Emmanuel’s case, the Property was held by three parties, as tenants in common, who clearly could not interact with each other and the Court ordered a sale of the Property. The relevant factors considered included

• The prejudice suffered by co-owner, Priya if the Property could not be sold, significantly outweighed the prejudice that the other co-owner, Su would suffer if the Property were sold.
• Co-owner, Priya made significant financial contributions to the Property and the Property was Priya’s principal asset. Co-owner, Su, on the other hand, made no financial contribution to the Property.
• Co-owner, Priya would be adjudged bankrupt if the Property was not sold. Furthermore, despite making the mortgage repayments, Priya did not enjoy occupation of the Property but resided in a rented HDB apartment.

3. Insolvency and Bankruptcy

When a person or business is declared bankrupt, the Insolvency, Restructuring and Dissolution Act (IRDA) authorizes the Official Assignee (in personal bankruptcy) or a court-appointed liquidator (in corporate insolvency) to sell the bankrupt party’s assets, including real estate.

Chee Yoh Chuang and another v Ooi Chhooi Ngoh [2020] SGHC 35

The Property was owned by Koh Sin Chong Freddie (“the Bankrupt”) and his wife, the respondent, as joint tenants. The learned Judge was of the view that when a court considers whether it is necessary or expedient to order a sale of property upon the application of the OA or the trustee in bankruptcy, it should consider not only the interests of all the individuals who may be directly affected by the sale but also the creditors of the bankrupt co-owner of the property. After considering the prejudice caused to the creditors, the respondent and the other occupants of the family home, the Court ordered the sale of the Property.

In conclusion, it is submitted that these cases reflect the Court’s willingness to order the sale of property to resolve disputes fairly, break deadlocks and to provide a practical solution in circumstances where continued co-ownership is no longer viable, achieve a clean separation of interests, and enable parties to achieve finality and move forward without the burden of ongoing conflict or uncertainty.