Management Corporation v Mer Vue: Amendment of Pleadings and Limitation in Building Defect Claim
In Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore dismissed the Plaintiff's appeal against the dismissal of its application to amend pleadings to include additional subsidiary proprietors in a building defect claim. The court held that the proposed amendments were time-barred under the Limitation Act, as the underlying contractual claims of the additional subsidiary proprietors had expired. The court also found the Plaintiff's explanation for the delay in filing the application unsatisfactory.
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 dismissed regarding amendment of pleadings to include additional subsidiary proprietors in a building defect claim due to limitation issues.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 | Plaintiff, Appellant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Samuel Seow, Kelvin Chia, Jolene Lim |
| Mer Vue Developments Pte Ltd | Defendant, Respondent | Corporation | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Christopher Chuah, Nikki Ngiam, Ng Pei Yin, Jasmine Low |
| Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| RSP Architects Planners & Engineers (Pte) Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| Squire Mech Private Limited | Defendant | Corporation | |||
| King Wan Construction Pte Ltd | Third Parties | Corporation | |||
| BASF South East Asia Pte Ltd | Third Parties | Corporation | |||
| Heng Boon Seng Construction Pte Ltd | Third Parties | Corporation | |||
| Kohup Sports Pte Ltd | Third Parties | Corporation | |||
| Jason Parquet Specialist (Singapore) Pte Ltd | Third Parties | Corporation | |||
| Powen Electrical Engineering Pte Ltd | Third Parties | Corporation |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Samuel Seow | Samuel Seow Law Corporation |
| Kelvin Chia | Samuel Seow Law Corporation |
| Jolene Lim | Samuel Seow Law Corporation |
| Christopher Chuah | WongPartnership LLP |
| Nikki Ngiam | WongPartnership LLP |
| Ng Pei Yin | WongPartnership LLP |
| Jasmine Low | WongPartnership LLP |
4. Facts
- The Plaintiff, MCST, brought an action against the 1st Defendant, Mer Vue, the developer, for building defects.
- The action was made on behalf of certain subsidiary proprietors relying on Section 85(1) of the BMSMA.
- The construction of the Development commenced in 2005 and was completed in 2008.
- The TOP for the Development was issued in two stages on 22 April 2008 and 28 May 2008.
- The CSC was issued on or about 24 December 2008.
- The Plaintiff sought to amend its F&BPs to include the names of an additional 113 subsidiary proprietors.
- The Plaintiff’s application was dismissed by AR Chong on 31 July 2015.
5. Formal Citations
- Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte Ltd and others, Suit No 563 of 2011/L (Registrar’s Appeal No 238 of 2015), [2016] SGHC 28
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Construction of the Development commenced. | |
| Temporary Occupation Permit issued (first stage). | |
| Temporary Occupation Permit issued (second stage). | |
| Certificate of Statutory Completion issued. | |
| First Annual General Meeting held. | |
| Initial site inspections by Plaintiff's expert began. | |
| Initial site inspections by Plaintiff's expert ended. | |
| Further and Better Particulars of the Statement of Claim filed. | |
| Plaintiff’s application dismissed by Assistant Registrar Chong Chin Chin. | |
| Appeal heard by Chan Seng Onn J. | |
| Plaintiff granted leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. | |
| Judgment issued by Chan Seng Onn J. |
7. Legal Issues
- Amendment of Pleadings
- Outcome: The court held that the Plaintiff's application to amend its pleadings to include additional subsidiary proprietors was not permissible as it was time-barred.
- Category: Procedural
- Limitation
- Outcome: The court held that the underlying contractual claims of the additional subsidiary proprietors were time-barred under the Limitation Act.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Contract
- Tort
- Breach of Statutory Duty
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Construction Law
11. Industries
- Construction
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MCST Plan No 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 613 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a management corporation must demonstrate an underlying substantive cause of action on the part of the subsidiary proprietors they represent and to demonstrate on which subsidiary proprietor's behalf the action is instituted. |
| MCST Plan No 1279 v Khong Guan Realty Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 527 | Singapore | Referred to in Seasons Park regarding observations on management corporations instituting or defending actions on behalf of subsidiary proprietors. |
| MCST Plan No 1938 v Goodview Properties Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 861 | Singapore | Referred to in Seasons Park regarding observations on management corporations instituting or defending actions on behalf of subsidiary proprietors. |
| Goodview Properties Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 350 | Singapore | Cited for the rule of abatement, which flows from the principle of privity of contract and the fact that each subsidiary proprietor is only a tenant-in-common of the common property to the extent of his share value in the development. |
| Koh Chong Chiah and others v Treasure Resort Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 4 SLR 1204 | Singapore | Cited to analogise the nature of represented persons in representative proceedings under O 15 r 12, where represented persons are similarly not “parties” before the court. |
| Abdul Gaffer bin Fathil v Chua Kwang Yong | High Court | Yes | [1994] 3 SLR(R) 1056 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the right to apply for joinder of parties under O 15 r 6 is subject to the law of limitation. |
| Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd | House of Lords | Yes | [1987] AC 189 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the right to apply for joinder of parties under O 15 r 6 is subject to the law of limitation. |
| Lim Yong Swan v Lim Jee Tee and another | High Court | Yes | [1992] 3 SLR(R) 940 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that O 20 r 5 sets out “two distinct schemes of practice” for the amendment of writs and pleadings, dependent on whether the relevant limitation period has expired or not. |
| Geocon Piling & Engineering Pte Ltd v Multistar Holdings Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 1215 | Singapore | Cited for the four questions to determine whether a proposed amendment adds or substitutes a new cause of action. |
| Lian Kok Hong v Ow Wah Foong and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2008] 4 SLR(R) 165 | Singapore | Cited to clarify the relationship between Section 6(1)(a) and Section 24A of the LA and for the principles as to the requisite knowledge under Section 24A(4). |
| Lim Check Meng v Orchard Credit Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 709 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the date of accrual of contractual actions is the date of the alleged breach. |
| Chia Kok Leong and another v Prosperland Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 484 | Singapore | Cited by Mer Vue for the argument that, for building defect claims, time runs from the date of completion of the building. |
| MCST Plan No 2827 v GBI Realty Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 229 | Singapore | Cited by the Plaintiff for the argument that the time had run only from the date its expert had conducted his initial site inspections. |
| Multistar Holdings Ltd v Geocon Piling & Engineering Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] SGCA 1 | Singapore | Decision in Geocon Piling has since been affirmed on appeal. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 15 r 6 |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 15 r 8(4)(a) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 15 r 12 |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 20 r 5 |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 20 r 5(1) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 20 r 5(5) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 20 r 5(2) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 20 rr 5(3) |
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 20 r 5(4) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) Section 85(1) | Singapore |
| Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed) Section 116 | Singapore |
| Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act (Cap 53B, 2002 Rev Ed) Section 2(1) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) Section 6(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) Section 24A(3) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) Section 24A(3)(a) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) Section 24A(3)(b) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) Section 24A(4) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) Section 24A(5) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Building defects
- Subsidiary proprietors
- Management corporation
- Limitation period
- Amendment of pleadings
- Representative capacity
- Sale and Purchase Agreements
- Temporary Occupation Permit
- Certificate of Statutory Completion
15.2 Keywords
- Building defects
- Strata title
- Limitation
- Amendment of pleadings
- Management corporation
16. Subjects
- Civil Procedure
- Limitation of Actions
- Construction Law
- Strata Management
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Limitation of Actions
- Building and Construction Law