Mir Hassan v Attorney-General: Judicial Review of STB's Decision on Collective Sale Approval

Mir Hassan bin Abdul Rahman and V Shunmuganathan sought judicial review in the High Court of Singapore against the Attorney-General, challenging the Strata Title Board's decision to resume a hearing for the en bloc sale of Tampines Court after the Board's mandate and contractual deadline had expired. Tan Lee Meng J quashed the STB's decision, ordering the hearing to resume before the contractual deadline, citing illegality and Wednesbury unreasonableness.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Decision of the Strata Title Board to resume the hearing of the application for approval of the en bloc sale on 7 August 2008 was quashed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Judicial review of STB's decision to resume hearing after mandate expired. Court quashed STB's decision, ordering hearing to resume before deadline.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Attorney-GeneralRespondentGovernment AgencyApplication GrantedLost
Soh Tze Bian of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Mir Hassan bin Abdul RahmanApplicantIndividualApplication GrantedWon
Fong Lee Cheng of Michael Hwang
Michael Hwang SC of Michael Hwang
V ShunmuganathanApplicantIndividualApplication GrantedWon
Fong Lee Cheng of Michael Hwang
Michael Hwang SC of Michael Hwang

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Tan Lee MengJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Soh Tze BianAttorney-General’s Chambers
Fong Lee ChengMichael Hwang
Michael Hwang SCMichael Hwang
Phang Sin KatMessrs Phang & Co
Susan WongMessrs Phang & Co

4. Facts

  1. Tampines Court is a privatized HUDC estate comprising 560 housing units.
  2. The residents appointed a sale committee for the purpose of a collective sale agreement dated 5 May 2006.
  3. Subsidiary proprietors holding 82.14% of the share values of Tampines Court had signed the collective sale agreement.
  4. The sale committee and Orchard Mall Pte Ltd concluded a sale and purchase agreement for $395 million plus $10 million.
  5. The STB’s approval of the en bloc sale must be obtained by 25 July 2008.
  6. The sale committee applied for the STB’s approval of the en bloc sale on 7 January 2008.
  7. The STB was constituted on 1 February 2008.
  8. Mediation efforts on 29 February 2008, 10 April 2008 and 10 June 2008 did not result in an agreement.
  9. The hearing of STB No 2 of 2008 was fixed for 16 to 18 June 2008 and was not completed.
  10. The STB decided that the hearing would resume on 7 August 2008.
  11. The contractual deadline in the S & PA for the obtaining of the STB’s approval of the en bloc sale is 25 July 2008.
  12. The STB is required by s 92(9) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 to make a final order or determination by 1 August 2008.
  13. The purchaser was not minded to extend the deadline.
  14. The applicants applied on 30 June 2008 for the hearing date to be brought forward.
  15. On 11 July 2008, the STB’s Registrar dismissed the sale committee’s application.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Mir Hassan bin Abdul Rahman and Another v Attorney-General, OS 941/2008, [2008] SGHC 147

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Collective sale agreement dated
Sale committee and Orchard Mall Pte Ltd concluded a sale and purchase agreement
STB delivered its decision in the Gillman Heights case
Sale committee applied for the STB’s approval of the en bloc sale of Tampines Court
STB was constituted to hear STB No 2 of 2008
First mediation hearing
Second mediation hearing
Third mediation hearing
Hearing of STB No 2 of 2008 fixed
Hearing of STB No 2 of 2008 fixed
Hearing of STB No 2 of 2008 fixed
Phang & Co wrote to the purchaser to extend the deadline on 25 July 2008
Purchaser replied that it was not minded to extend the said deadline
Applicants applied for the hearing date to be brought forward
STB’s Registrar dismissed the sale committee’s application
Applicants filed an Originating Summons for leave to apply for judicial review
Leave was granted on 16 July 2008
STB was ordered to resume the said hearing
STB to resume the hearing of their application
Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Illegality
    • Outcome: The court found that the STB acted ultra vires by fixing the resumed hearing after its mandate had expired, rendering the decision illegal.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Acting ultra vires
      • Failure to comply with mandatory procedural norms
  2. Wednesbury Unreasonableness
    • Outcome: The court found that the STB's decision to schedule the resumed hearing after both its mandate and the contractual deadline had expired was unreasonable in the Wednesbury sense.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Decision defies logic
      • Decision is an exercise in futility
  3. Discretion of Strata Title Board
    • Outcome: The court held that the STB's discretion to fix hearing dates must be exercised within the bounds of its statutory mandate and with a duty to act expeditiously.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Fixing hearing dates
      • Duty to act expeditiously

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Quashing of the STB’s decision to resume the hearing on 7 August 2008
  2. Order for the STB to resume the hearing on Monday, 21 July 2008

9. Cause of Actions

  • Judicial Review

10. Practice Areas

  • Administrative Law
  • Real Estate Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Council of Civil Service Unions and Ors v Minister for the Civil ServiceN/AYes[1985] AC 374N/ACited for the principle of illegality in judicial review, requiring decision-makers to understand and give effect to the law regulating their powers.
Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury CorporationN/AYes[1948] 1 KB 223N/ACited to define 'Wednesbury unreasonableness' as a ground for judicial review, referring to decisions so outrageous in their defiance of logic that no sensible person could have arrived at it.
The King v Commonwealth Court of Conciliation ArbitrationN/AYes[1949] 80 CLR 164N/ACited for the principle that if a duty is not validly or effectively performed due to a misconception or failure to comply with essential requirements, the person may be commanded to execute the function according to law.
Ng Swee Lang v Samuel Bernard SassoonN/AYes[2008] 1 SLR 522N/ACited to support the purpose of the Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA) to facilitate en bloc sales.
Ng Swee Lang v Samuel Bernard SassoonCourt of AppealYes[2008] 2 SLR 597SingaporeCited to support the purpose of the Land Titles (Strata) Act (LTSA) to facilitate en bloc sales.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 (Act 47 of 2004)Singapore
Section 92(9) Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 (Act 47 of 2004)Singapore
Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Strata Title Board
  • En bloc sale
  • Judicial review
  • Wednesbury unreasonableness
  • Illegality
  • Sale and purchase agreement
  • Collective sale agreement
  • HUDC estate
  • Ministerial approval
  • Mandate
  • Ultra vires

15.2 Keywords

  • Judicial Review
  • Strata Title Board
  • En Bloc Sale
  • Collective Sale
  • Administrative Law
  • Illegality
  • Wednesbury Unreasonableness

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
En Bloc Sales90
Strata Title Law80
Administrative Law75
Judicial Review70
Property Law65
Construction Law30
Contract Law25

16. Subjects

  • Administrative Law
  • Real Estate
  • Strata Titles
  • Collective Sales
  • Civil Procedure