Management Corporation v Tham Keng Mun: District Court Jurisdiction & Breach of Statutory Duty

In Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2911 v Tham Keng Mun and others, before the High Court of Singapore on 2 November 2010, the appellants appealed against a District Judge's decision to strike out their counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction. The High Court, Woo Bih Li J, allowed the appeals, holding that the District Court did have jurisdiction over the counterclaim, which included a cause of action for breach of statutory duty. The respondent's claim was for occupying a driveway without authorization, while the appellants' counterclaim alleged breach of duty of care and arbitrary exercise of powers.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeals allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding District Court's jurisdiction over a counterclaim for breach of statutory duty. High Court allowed the appeal, finding jurisdiction.

1.7 Decision Date

1 November 2010

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2911	Plaintiff, Respondent	Corporation	Appeal allowed	Lost	Carolyn Tan of Tan & Au LLP Tony Au of Tan & Au LLP
Tham Keng Mun	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	David Liew of LawHub LLC
Sum Yuet Leng	Defendant, Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	David Liew of LawHub LLC
Eltron Engineering Pte Ltd	Defendant, Appellant	Corporation	Appeal allowed	Won	David Liew of LawHub LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Woo Bih Li	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Carolyn Tan	Tan & Au LLP
Tony Au	Tan & Au LLP
David Liew	LawHub LLC

4. Facts

The respondent is the management corporation for a building.
The appellants are subsidiary proprietors and a tenant of a unit in the building.
The appellants placed objects on a driveway outside their unit, which is part of the common property.
The respondent commenced an action against the appellants for occupying the driveway without authorization.
The appellants filed a counterclaim alleging breach of duty of care and arbitrary exercise of powers by the respondent.
The District Judge struck out the counterclaim for lack of jurisdiction.

5. Formal Citations

Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2911 v Tham Keng Mun and others, , [2010] SGHC 326

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2006-07-27	Respondent commenced an action against the appellants in the District Court.
2006-08-15	Appellants filed a defence and counterclaim.
2009-09-04	District Judge asked for submissions on whether the District Court had jurisdiction over the respondent’s claim and the Counterclaim.
2009-12-08	District Judge held that the District Court did not have jurisdiction over the Counterclaim and struck it out.
2009-12-21	Appellants filed the First Appeal.
2009-12-30	The Subordinate Courts Registry issued the First Appeal.
2010-01-20	Appellants served the notice of appeal on the respondent via a fax transmission.
2010-01-22	Appellants served the notice of appeal on the respondent by hand.
2010-02-22	Respondent applied to strike out the First Appeal.
2010-02-23	Appellants applied for an extension of time for the service of the First Appeal.
2010-03-03	Kan Ting Chiu J directed that both summons were to be heard together in the Subordinate Courts.
2010-04-07	District Judge dismissed the application for extension of time and struck out the First Appeal.
2010-04-21	Appellants filed the Second Appeal.
2010-11-02	High Court allowed the appeals.

7. Legal Issues

District Court Jurisdiction
- Outcome: The High Court held that the District Court's civil jurisdiction is restricted to the causes of action specified in the Subject Matter Jurisdiction Provisions of the Subordinate Courts Act.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Related Cases:
  - [1992] 2 SLR(R) 688
  - [2009] SGDC 204
Breach of Statutory Duty
- Outcome: The High Court held that an action for breach of statutory duty falls under section 20 of the Subordinate Courts Act because it is an action founded on a tort.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [1979] 1 QB 626
Extension of Time for Service of Notice of Appeal
- Outcome: The High Court allowed the extension of time for service of the notice of appeal, considering the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the chances of the appeal succeeding, and the degree of prejudice to the respondent.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2010] 1 SLR 1026

8. Remedies Sought

Order for removal of objects from common property
Possession of the driveway
Damages
Order to ensure all objects placed on the common property be removed
Damages for the loss of use of the common property

9. Cause of Actions

Breach of Statutory Duty

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation

11. Industries

Construction
Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Anwar Siraj and another v Ting Kang Chung	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2010] 1 SLR 1026	Singapore	Cited for the factors the court considers in determining whether to extend time for the filing or service of a notice of appeal.
Pearson v Chen Chien Wen Edwin	N/A	Yes	[1991] 2 SLR(R) 260	Singapore	Cited as the modern approach taken by the court to the question of extending time to file a notice of appeal or to serve a notice out of time.
The Melati	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR(R) 7	Singapore	Cited to underscore the point that the need for finality was a paramount consideration when determining whether to extend time for the filing or service of a notice of appeal.
Lee Hsien Loong v Singapore Democratic Party and others and another suit	N/A	Yes	[2008] 1 SLR(R) 757	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if the delay were de minimis, it might be excused without the court having to consider the reasons for the delay in detail.
AD v AE	N/A	Yes	[2004] 2 SLR(R) 505	Singapore	Cited as a case concerning an appeal from the District Judge in chambers, where the Court of Appeal refused to grant an extension of time after considering all the four factors.
Denko-HLB Sdn Bhd v Fagerdala Singapore Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] 2 SLR(R) 336	Singapore	Cited as a case concerning a delay in making an application for further arguments, where the Court of Appeal refused to grant an extension of time after considering all the four factors.
Perdigao Agroindustrial SA v Barilla GER Fratelli-Societa Per Azioni	High Court	Yes	[2009] SGHC 210	Singapore	Cited for the principle that oversight on the part of a solicitor could be an adequate reason if the reasons for the solicitor’s oversight are explained or if there are extenuating circumstances.
Nomura Regionalisation Venture Fund Ltd v Ethical Investments Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2000] 2 SLR(R) 926	Singapore	Cited for the principle that oversight on the part of a solicitor could be an adequate reason if there are extenuating circumstances.
Aberdeen Asset Management Asia v Fraser & Neave Ltd	N/A	Yes	[2001] 3 SLR(R) 355	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the prejudice must be tangible and it is not sufficient for the respondent to argue that its prejudice is that the appeal would be heard if the extension of time were granted.
S3 Building Services Pte Ltd v Sky Technology Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2001] SGHC 87	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the prejudice must be tangible and it is not sufficient for the respondent to argue that its prejudice is that the appeal would be heard if the extension of time were granted.
Lim Kim Cheong v Lee Johnson	N/A	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR(R) 688	Singapore	Cited for the holding that the District Court did not have the jurisdiction to grant a declaration that a transfer of a car was null and void.
The Redwood Tree Pte Ltd v CPL Trading Pte Ltd	District Court	Yes	[2009] SGDC 204	Singapore	Cited for the holding that the jurisdiction of the District Court is strictly limited to the causes of action specified in the Subject Matter Jurisdiction Provisions.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 980 v Yat Yuen Hong Co Pte Ltd and another	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 3 SLR(R) 219	Singapore	Cited for the approach that the claim is not brought under BMSMA as such, rather, the action is brought as a common law claim.
Thornton v Kirlees Metropolitan Borough Council	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1979] 1 QB 626	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an action for breach of statutory duty would fall within the County Court’s jurisdiction because it was an action for tort.
Choo Kok Lin and another v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2405	N/A	Yes	[2005] 4 SLR(R) 175	Singapore	Cited for the view that the by-laws constitute a statutory contract.
Chia Sok Kheng Kathleen v The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 669	N/A	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR(R) 27	Singapore	Cited for the view that the by-laws constitute a statutory contract.
Public Prosecutor v D'Crus L Edward Epiphany	High Court	Yes	[1993] 1 SLR(R) 128	Singapore	Cited for the definition of the word “court” as meaning “any court of competent jurisdiction in Singapore”.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Subordinate Courts Act (Cap 321, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Building Management and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, Rev Ed 2008)	Singapore
Interpretation Act (Cap 1, Rev Ed 2002)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Management Corporation
Strata Title
Subsidiary Proprietors
Common Property
Breach of Statutory Duty
District Court Jurisdiction
Extension of Time
Counterclaim

15.2 Keywords

District Court
Jurisdiction
Appeal
Strata Title
Management Corporation
Breach of Statutory Duty

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Practice	75
Property Law	60
Contract Law	40
Construction Law	20
Administrative Law	15

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Jurisdiction
Torts
Strata Management