Yap Sing Lee v MCST Plan No 1267: Disclosure of Information & Legal Privilege under BMSMA
Mr. Yap Sing Lee, a subsidiary proprietor, appealed to the High Court against the Strata Titles Board's decision regarding his application to compel Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1267 to disclose information under Section 47 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act. The High Court, presided over by Belinda Ang Saw Ean J, dismissed the appeal, holding that the MCST could assert legal professional privilege against a subsidiary proprietor's request for information. The court found no error of law in the STB's decision and ordered Mr. Yap to pay costs.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding MCST's refusal to disclose documents under BMSMA s 47. The court held MCST could claim legal privilege against a subsidiary proprietor.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yap Sing Lee | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1267 | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Kenneth Tan SC |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kenneth Tan SC | Kenneth Tan Partnership |
4. Facts
- Mr. Yap, a subsidiary proprietor, sought to compel the MCST to disclose information under s 47 of the BMSMA.
- The MCST refused to disclose certain documents, claiming legal professional privilege.
- The Strata Titles Board ruled that the MCST could assert legal professional privilege against Mr. Yap.
- Mr. Yap appealed the STB's decision to the High Court.
- The dispute centered on whether a MCST could assert legal advice privilege against a SP under s 47 of the BMSMA.
- Mr. Yap argued that the MCST was an agent of the SPs and could not claim legal advice privilege against them.
- The High Court found that a MCST is a separate legal entity and can claim legal advice privilege.
5. Formal Citations
- Yap Sing Lee v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1267, Originating Summons No 672 of 2010, [2011] SGHC 24
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Legal proceedings commenced against Ponda by the respondent. | |
| Mr. Yap made applications under s 47 of the BMSMA to inspect documents. | |
| 3rd Council Meeting held. | |
| 4th Council Meeting held. | |
| 5th Council Meeting held. | |
| Mr. Yap filed STB No 69 of 2009 before the STB. | |
| Strata Titles Board made orders in STB No 69 of 2009. | |
| High Court dismissed Mr. Yap’s appeal. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Legal Professional Privilege
- Outcome: The court held that a Management Corporation Strata Title Plan could assert legal professional privilege against a subsidiary proprietor's request for information under s 47 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2009] 3 SLR(R) 109
- [2007] 2 SLR(R) 367
- [1996] 1 AC 487
- (1983) 153 CLR 52
- [2003] 2 AC 736
- [2003] 1 AC 563
- [2009] 1 AC 908
- (2002) 213 CLR 543
- [2004] 1 SCR 809
- [2007] 3 SLR(R) 78
- (1889) 43 Ch D 12
- Right to Information
- Outcome: The court held that the right of a subsidiary proprietor to obtain information from a Management Corporation Strata Title Plan under s 47 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act is subject to legal professional privilege.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1991] SGSTB 3
- Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that there was no breach of natural justice by the Strata Titles Board.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1964] 1 AC 40
- [2010] SGCA 39
- [2000] 1 WLR 306
8. Remedies Sought
- Order that the respondent supply the information or documents sought by him
- Setting aside of the STB’s decision
9. Cause of Actions
- Application to compel disclosure of information under s 47 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act
- Appeal against decision of Strata Titles Board
10. Practice Areas
- Civil Litigation
- Strata Management Disputes
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ng Eng Ghee and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 109 | Singapore | Construed the phrase “point of law” in the context of an appeal from the STB to the High Court. |
| Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow and another | N/A | Yes | [1956] 1 AC 14 | N/A | Cited for the principle that an error of law might occur where the facts as found could not possibly justify the legal conclusion reached. |
| Skandinaviska Enskilda Banken AB (Publ), Singapore Branch v Asia Pacific Breweries (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 367 | Singapore | Exhaustively analysed legal professional privilege and stated that it was a statutory right enacted in ss 128 and 131 of the Evidence Act. |
| Regina v Derby Magistrates’ Court, ex parte B | N/A | Yes | [1996] 1 AC 487 | N/A | Legal professional privilege is not merely a rule of evidence, restricted to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, but is now considered a substantive legal right that may be claimed outside these areas. |
| Baker v Campbell | N/A | Yes | (1983) 153 CLR 52 | N/A | Legal professional privilege is not merely a rule of evidence, restricted to judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, but is now considered a substantive legal right that may be claimed outside these areas. |
| Re The Estoril (Strata Titles Plan No 843) | Strata Titles Board | Yes | [1991] SGSTB 3 | Singapore | Cited by the applicant as establishing that a MCST could not resist a SP’s application for the supply of information under s 47 of the BMSMA by claiming legal advice privilege. The court disagreed with the reasoning in that case. |
| Aron Salomon (a pauper) v A Salomon and Company, Limited | N/A | Yes | [1897] 1 AC 22 | N/A | Cited for the principle that a company is not ipso facto an agent for its members. |
| B and others v Auckland District Law Society and another | N/A | Yes | [2003] 2 AC 736 | N/A | Legal professional privilege is a right to resist the compulsory disclosure of information. |
| Regina (Morgan Grenfell & Co Ltd) v Special Commissioners of Income Tax and another | N/A | Yes | [2003] 1 AC 563 | N/A | A statute will not be read as excluding or overriding legal advice privilege unless such an intention was expressly stated or appeared by necessary implication. |
| McE v Prison Service of Northern Ireland and another (Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission and others intervening) | N/A | Yes | [2009] 1 AC 908 | N/A | A statute will not be read as excluding or overriding legal advice privilege unless such an intention was expressly stated or appeared by necessary implication. |
| The Daniels Corporation International Pty Ltd & Anor v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission | N/A | Yes | (2002) 213 CLR 543 | N/A | A statute will not be read as excluding or overriding legal advice privilege unless such an intention was expressly stated or appeared by necessary implication. |
| Colleen Pritchard v Ontario Human Rights Commission (Attorney General of Canada, Attorney General of Ontario, Canadian Human Rights Commission and Manitoba Human Rights Commission (Interveners)) | N/A | Yes | [2004] 1 SCR 809 | N/A | Legal advice privilege cannot be abrogated by inference, and the statutory intention to abrogate legal advice privilege must be “clearly or unequivocally” expressed. |
| Leong Wai Kay v Carrefour Singapore Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 3 SLR(R) 78 | Singapore | Legislation is not presumed to take away existing rights except expressly or by necessary implication. |
| In re Cuno | N/A | Yes | (1889) 43 Ch D 12 | N/A | Legislation is not presumed to take away existing rights except expressly or by necessary implication. |
| Ridge v Baldwin and others | N/A | Yes | [1964] 1 AC 40 | N/A | A decision given without regard to the principles of natural justice is void. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2010] SGCA 39 | Singapore | Not every breach of natural justice is equally serious. |
| Nina Begum v Tower Hamlets London Borough Council | N/A | Yes | [2000] 1 WLR 306 | N/A | The words “point of law” included the full range of issues which would otherwise be the subject of an application to the High Court for judicial review, such as procedural error. |
| Great Atlantic Insurance Co v Home Insurance Co and others | N/A | Yes | [1981] 1 WLR 529 | N/A | Cited regarding waiver of privilege by disclosing part of a document. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 418 | Singapore | Described a MCST as an unlimited liability company. |
| Consolidated Contractors International Company SAL and another v Munib Masri | England and Wales Court of Appeal (Civil Division) | Yes | [2011] EWCA Civ 21 | England and Wales | Cited regarding disclosing only the unprivileged portion of a document by redacting the privileged portion. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 98 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 29(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 34 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 35 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 24(1) | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 44(1) | Singapore |
| Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 2009 Rev Ed) s 84A(1A) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A(1) | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act s 19(c) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 128 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 131 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 2(1) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act s 3 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 92 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Management Corporation Strata Title Plan
- Subsidiary Proprietor
- Legal Professional Privilege
- Legal Advice Privilege
- Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act
- Strata Titles Board
- Common Property
- Agent
- Body Corporate
- Necessary Implication
15.2 Keywords
- Strata Title
- Management Corporation
- Legal Privilege
- Disclosure
- Building Maintenance
16. Subjects
- Strata Management
- Legal Professional Privilege
- Disclosure of Information
17. Areas of Law
- Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act
- Strata Titles Law
- Legal Professional Privilege
- Civil Procedure