Tunas Pte Ltd v Management Corporation: Recovery of Legal Fees Dispute
Tunas Pte Ltd sued The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 562 in the High Court of Singapore, seeking the withdrawal of registered instruments and the repayment of $20,647.90 paid under protest. The dispute arose after Tunas Pte Ltd sold its property and the Management Corporation demanded substantial legal fees. Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean ruled that the Management Corporation wrongfully refused to withdraw the Writ of Seizure and Sale and the Management Corporation Charge, and was not entitled to the payment of $20,647.90 before discharging the instruments. The court ordered the Management Corporation to pay costs to Tunas Pte Ltd.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Judgment for Plaintiff
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tunas Pte Ltd sued Management Corporation over wrongful refusal to withdraw registered instruments and claim for legal fees. The court ruled in favor of Tunas Pte Ltd.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tunas Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Judgment for Plaintiff | Won | Cheong Yuen Hee, Peter Pang Giap Oon |
| The Management Corporation Strata Title No 562 | Defendant | Corporation | Orders against Defendant | Lost | Lim Chee San |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Cheong Yuen Hee | Y H Cheong |
| Peter Pang Giap Oon | Peter Pang & Co |
| Lim Chee San | TanLim Partnership |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff was the subsidiary proprietor of units in Hub Synergy Point.
- Defendant is the Management Corporation of Hub Synergy Point.
- Instruments IB24036N and IB31843D were registered against the plaintiff's estate.
- Defendant claimed $112,176.37 in legal fees after the plaintiff sold the Premises.
- Plaintiff paid $20,647.90 under protest to avoid delaying the sale of the Premises.
- Defendant relied on AGM resolutions to recover legal fees.
- The 2008 Memorial was entered on the land register pursuant to s 132 of the LTA.
- The 2008 MCST Charge was lodged pursuant to s 43 of the BMSMA.
5. Formal Citations
- Tunas Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 562, Originating Summons No 505 of 2014, [2015] SGHC 236
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendant commenced MC Suit 17644 to recover outstanding contributions. | |
| Order of Court issued to execute on the Premises. | |
| Order of Court entered as a memorial on the land register. | |
| 2008 MCST Charge lodged. | |
| Plaintiff paid $51,229.82 to the defendant. | |
| Defendant filed a Request directing the Sherriff to release the Premises from the 2008 WSS. | |
| Plaintiff paid $181,099.78. | |
| Defendant discontinued its Company Winding up Petition No 33/2009. | |
| IB484820J registered. | |
| Plaintiff informed the defendant about the sale of the Premises. | |
| Defendant claimed it was owed $112,176.37. | |
| Defendant threatened legal action if the 2014 demand was not paid. | |
| Plaintiff filed Originating Summons No 505 of 2014. | |
| Defendant indicated its willingness to withdraw or discharge three registered instruments if the plaintiff paid $20,647.90. | |
| Plaintiff paid $20,647.90 under protest. | |
| Court made orders on the amended prayers in OS 505. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Wrongful Refusal to Withdraw Registered Instruments
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant wrongfully refused to withdraw the Writ of Seizure and Sale and the Management Corporation Charge.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Refusal to withdraw Writ of Seizure and Sale
- Refusal to discharge Management Corporation Charge
- Entitlement to Legal Fees
- Outcome: The court held that the defendant was not entitled to payment of $20,647.90 before discharging the instruments.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Recovery of solicitor and client costs
- Interpretation of Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 43
- Limitation
- Outcome: The court held that the claim for legal fees in the sum of $11,230.80 was time-barred.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Accrual of claim for legal fees
- Application of Limitation Act
8. Remedies Sought
- Withdrawal of Registered Instruments
- Repayment of Money Paid Under Protest
- Costs
9. Cause of Actions
- Wrongful Refusal
- Breach of Statutory Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani and another and other appeals | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 496 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that full recovery of solicitor and client costs is only recoverable in exceptional circumstances. |
| Henderson v Henderson | N/A | Yes | [1843–60] All ER Rep 378 | N/A | Cited for the principle that every point that properly belonged to the subject of the application ought to have been brought up with reasonable diligence. |
| Lee Tat Property Management Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 360 | N/A | Yes | [1990] 2 SLR(R) 660 | Singapore | Cited regarding costs awarded on a solicitor and client basis, but found to no longer be good law in light of Maryani Sadeli v Arjun Permanand Samtani. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 473 v De Beers Jewellery Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [2002] 1 SLR(R) 418 | Singapore | Cited to support the point that the defendant is a creature of statute and its rights and powers are derived from the BMSMA. |
| The Owners – Strata Plan No 36131 v Dimitriou | New South Wales Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] NSWLR 370 | New South Wales | Cited for the proposition that legal costs in the statutory provision meant party and party costs on the ordinary basis. |
| Koh Sin Chong Freddie v Singapore Swimming Club | N/A | Yes | [2015] 1 SLR 1240 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a resolution is not a contract between the entity and the members or between the entity and third parties, but is instead a decision of the entity, made by the members of that entity. |
| Rourke v Robinson | N/A | Yes | [1911] 1 Ch 480 | N/A | Cited to support the argument that the plaintiff was entitled to a discharge after paying up the outstanding contributions in full in the same way a mortgagor was entitled to a discharge after performing its obligations under the mortgage. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap. 157) | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 (Cap 30C) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1985 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Strata Schemes Management Act 1996 (No 138 of 2009) (NSW) | New South Wales |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Management Corporation
- Subsidiary Proprietor
- Registered Instruments
- Legal Fees
- Writ of Seizure and Sale
- Management Corporation Charge
- Annual General Meeting Resolution
- Section 43 Costs
- Solicitor and Client Costs
- Limitation Act
- Instrument of Discharge
15.2 Keywords
- strata title
- management corporation
- legal fees
- writ of seizure
- mortgage
- limitation
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Strata Management
- Legal Fees
- Property Law
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Strata Title Law
- Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act
- Civil Procedure
- Land Law