• About
  • Shop
  • Forum
  • Contact
No Result
View All Result
  • Login
SG Law.News
  • Home
  • News
  • International
  • Courts
  • Bills
  • Inspirational
  • Featured Professionals
  • Home
  • News
  • International
  • Courts
  • Bills
  • Inspirational
  • Featured Professionals
No Result
View All Result
SG Law.News
No Result
View All Result
Home Courts

High Court Dismisses $18.4 Million Refund Claim Over Aborted Ardmore Park Penthouse Deal

October 31, 2025
in Courts, News
325
SHARES
2.5k
VIEWS
Share on FacebookShare on Twitter

As reported by The Straits Times (Oct 31, 2025) — A South Korean man, Mr. Kwon Do Hyeong, has lost his legal bid to recover $18.4 million after backing out of a $38.8 million luxury penthouse purchase at Ardmore Park.

Background

Mr. Kwon had paid a total of $19.4 million to the vendor, Covenson, before deciding not to go ahead with the deal. The payments were made between December 2021 and February 2022, during an unusually long 18-month option period he requested to accommodate his pending Singapore permanent residency (PR) application.

The extended option was granted after Singapore raised the Additional Buyer’s Stamp Duty (ABSD) for foreigners from 20% to 30%, prompting Mr. Kwon to seek more time or a lower purchase price.

Court Decision

Justice Philip Jeyaretnam ruled that the sums paid before the option was exercised were part of the option fee — not advance payments for the property — and were “fully earned” by the vendor for keeping the unit off the market.
The High Court found no basis for Mr. Kwon’s claim that the forfeiture was “invalid or unlawful.” The vendor’s counterclaim for $40,000 in additional rent was also allowed.

The Aborted Purchase

Despite signing a tenancy agreement and staying in the unit from June to August 2022, Mr. Kwon’s wife later exercised the option to purchase in May 2023, only for the couple to withdraw two weeks later. The sale was officially terminated on June 22, 2023, and the penthouse was subsequently resold for $34.5 million.

Legal Takeaway

Justice Jeyaretnam emphasized that buyers who negotiate extended option periods assume the risk that the vendor may justifiably retain significant sums as compensation for keeping the property unavailable to others.
This decision highlights how option fees, especially in high-end property transactions, are legally distinct from down payments.

Share this:

  • Share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading…

Related

No Result
View All Result

Categories

  • Bills (13)
  • Courts (51)
  • Crime (18)
  • Featured Professionals (8)
  • Inspirational (5)
  • International (22)
  • News (73)
  • Uncategorized (6)

Recent.

Malaysia’s Longest-Running Mystery: Court Rules Police Were Behind Pastor’s Disappearance

December 28, 2025

In Memoriam of Mr M Ravi

December 24, 2025

Law Society President Expresses Concerns on Investigation Leak

December 17, 2025
SG Law.News

© 2025 SGLaw.news - Premium Legal News Magazine Law.news.

Navigate Site

  • About
  • Shop
  • Forum
  • Contact

Follow Us

Welcome Back!

Login to your account below

Forgotten Password?

Retrieve your password

Please enter your username or email address to reset your password.

Log In
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • News
  • International
  • Courts
  • Bills
  • Inspirational
  • Featured Professionals

© 2025 SGLaw.news - Premium Legal News Magazine Law.news.

Discover more from SG Law.News

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

%d