Couple sues ERA, agent and law firm for S$731,212 over alleged misrepresentation in ‘99-1’ property deal

A married couple caught out by a failed “99-1” property transaction has sued ERA Realty, one of its agents and a law firm for S$731,212, alleging negligent misrepresentation and breach of duty.

The buyers, Samuel Soh and Ken Tan, sued the three over a 99-to-1 transaction in December 2022, seeking to recover S$731,212 in damages – the additional tax and surcharge imposed by the taxman for what it deemed to be illegal stamp duty avoidance on their condominium purchase. 

This is the latest in a string of lawsuits over the past year involving property buyers suing real estate agencies, their agents and law firms. Similar suits have also surfaced against PropNex.

In the statement of claim filed through law firm WongPartnership’s Gavin Neo, Soh claimed that the property agent, Teni Atmadja, first introduced the 99-to-1 structure in March 2020 while discussing a home purchase. Soh owned a HDB flat in Tampines then. 

Under the arrangement, Tan would buy the property in her sole name to avoid Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) as a first-time buyer, before selling a 1 per cent stake to Soh. This would allow the couple to combine incomes for a larger loan while reducing ABSD. 

The arrangement was revisited in October 2021 when Tan was planning to sell her condominium unit at Le Quest to buy another property while Soh retained his flat. 

The couple said Atmadja repeatedly assured them that the arrangement was “legal and legitimate”, a position they claim was later confirmed by law firm YY Lee & Associates. 

“Induced by and acting in reliance on” these representations, the couple sold the Le Quest apartment for S$1.23 million in October 2022. 

Tan then purchased a unit at One Pearl Bank condominium for S$2.92 million on Dec 5, before selling a 1 per cent share to Soh the next day for S$29,190. 

The sub-sale was completed in January 2023, with Tan holding 99 per cent and Soh 1 per cent as tenants-in-common. 

In December 2025, the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore said the arrangement was “a case of illegal stamp duty avoidance” and treated the transaction as a joint purchase, imposing ABSD on the full property value and a 50 per cent surcharge of S$243,737. 

The couple was ordered to pay S$731,212 in total. 

Assertions

In court papers, Soh and Tan alleged that Atmadja made the representations negligently, and owed them a duty of care as their agent.

The two also claimed that ERA failed to adequately train and supervise Atmadja on property laws and regulations, and was “vicariously liable” for her conduct as its salesperson. 

The couple further claimed that YY Lee & Associates breached its duty of care by failing to warn them that the 99-to-1 structure might be considered illegal stamp duty avoidance. 

ERA and Atmadja, defended by Lee & Lee’s Julian Tay, have denied the allegations. 

Atmadja said she only suggested that a new property could be bought under Tan’s name to avoid ABSD and maximise the loan. 

She also denied coming up with the 99-1 arrangement, and said that she had merely outlined general options for the couple, who ultimately decided on the arrangement on their own. 

Atmadja claimed that she had learnt of the 99-to-1 arrangement through talks by law firms, and only mentioned that some law firms were assisting their clients with it. 

She added that she had obtained confirmation from YY Lee & Associates that this structure could be used to reduce ABSD.  

The agent further argued that the couple knew she was not a lawyer and could not give any legal advice, including on the legality of the 99-to-1 arrangement. 

ERA and Atmadja also contended that they were not acting for the couple in the purchase of the One Pearl Bank unit, and were instead representing the project’s developer. The couple did not enter into any estate agency agreement with them or pay any commission for the purchase. 

“Accordingly, (Atmadja) owed no duty to (the couple) in relation to the One Pearl Bank flat transactions,” they argued. 

In any case, they claimed that the couple could not have relied on Atmadja’s representations since there was a gap of about two-and-a-half years between when the arrangement was first discussed and when the One Pearl Bank purchase took place. 

In that time, there were also media reports raising issues about 99-to-1 arrangements, they said. 

Additionally, ERA and Atmadja claimed that the couple contributed to their own losses, since they were contacted by the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore as early as May 2024 and could have just paid the ABSD then and avoided the S$243,737 surcharge. 

They further argued that ABSD and surcharge are statutory levies and penalties, and recovering that sum in damages would “undermine the fundamental public policy underlying the ABSD regime… neutralising the deterrent and regulatory effect intended by the legislature”. 

Separately, ERA said it had proper systems and processes in place to train and supervise its salespersons.

It also pointed out that Atmadja was technically self-employed and not an employee of ERA. 

The Business Times understands the parties are potentially headed for mediation. 

Source: The Business Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

The rise of ‘shadow productivity’ in the age of AI: Commentary