Sit Kwong Lam v MCST Plan No 2645: Strata Titles, Common Property, By-Laws Dispute

In Sit Kwong Lam v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2645, the Singapore High Court addressed an appeal by Sit Kwong Lam against the Strata Titles Board's decision regarding unauthorized installations on common property. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Kannan Ramesh, dismissed the appeal, upholding the Board's finding that the appellant breached by-laws by installing timber decking and an air-conditioning unit without proper authorization. The court clarified the interpretation of 'common property' under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act and affirmed the management corporation's authority to regulate alterations affecting common areas.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court case concerning strata titles, common property, and by-law breaches. Appeal dismissed.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Sit Kwong LamAppellantIndividualAppeal DismissedLostAlvin Yeo, Candy Agnes Sutedja, Hannah Lee
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2645RespondentCorporationApplication DismissedWonSubramanian s/o Ayasamy Pillai, Perera Randall Mingyang

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Kannan RameshJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Alvin YeoWongPartnership LLP
Candy Agnes SutedjaWongPartnership LLP
Hannah LeeWongPartnership LLP
Subramanian s/o Ayasamy PillaiColin Ng & Partners LLP
Perera Randall MingyangColin Ng & Partners LLP

4. Facts

  1. Appellant installed timber decking on ledges outside his unit (Work 1).
  2. Appellant installed timber decking on the flat roof outside his unit (Work 2).
  3. Appellant installed an air-conditioning ventilation unit on the outside wall of the building (Work 3).
  4. The ledges and flat roof were demarcated as common property in the strata title plan.
  5. Appellant did not obtain prior approval for the works on common property.
  6. Appellant's motions to acquire exclusive use of the areas were rejected at the AGM.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Sit Kwong Lam v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2645, Originating Summons 246 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 57

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Appellant submitted application for works at the Unit.
Respondent discovered fixed glass panels replaced and timber decking installed.
Respondent emailed Glory stating Work 1 was unauthorized.
Respondent advised appellant to submit formal application for timber decking.
Appellant submitted application to respondent.
Appellant advised to sponsor 90% resolution at upcoming AGM.
Respondent discovered timber decking installed on flat roof.
Respondent discovered air-conditioning unit installed on outside wall.
Respondent requested immediate removal of Works 1, 2 and 3.
Respondent gave 14 days’ notice to remove the Works.
Glory communicated appellant’s intention to table proposal under Section 34.
Appellant given 14 days’ notice to remove the Works.
Appellant tabled three motions seeking exclusive use at the AGM.
Appellant commenced the STB Application.
The Board dismissed the STB Application.
Appellant filed the Application.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Hearing date.
Judgment Date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Interpretation of Common Property
    • Outcome: The court held that the two limbs in the definition of common property in s 2(1) of the Act are to be read conjunctively.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Conjunctive vs. Disjunctive Interpretation of Section 2(1) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act
      • Whether common property includes areas not intended for the enjoyment of any occupier
    • Related Cases:
      • [2014] 4 SLR 445
      • [2015] SGSTB 5
      • [1993] SGSTB 1
      • [1995] 3 SLR(R) 713
  2. Breach of By-Laws
    • Outcome: The court found that the appellant breached by-laws 8.1.1 and 8.2.5 of the Additional By-Laws and by-law 5 of the Prescribed By-Laws.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Failure to obtain necessary approval for works on common property
      • Inconsistency of Additional By-Laws with the Act
  3. Exclusive Use of Common Property
    • Outcome: The court agreed with the Board's finding that Work 3 amounted to exclusive use of the common property within the meaning of s 33 of the Act.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether the installation of an air-conditioning unit constitutes exclusive use of common property
      • Jurisdiction of the management corporation to authorize exclusive use for a period not exceeding one year
    • Related Cases:
      • [2003] SGSTB 5
      • [2011] SGSTB 1
      • [2013] SGSTB 10
      • [2014] 1 SLR 164
  4. Retrospective Consent for Alterations
    • Outcome: The court held that s 111(a) of the Act operates prospectively, but an appellant can avail himself of s 111(a) where the works have been carried out without prior approval.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether Section 111(a) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act can apply retrospectively
    • Related Cases:
      • [2003] SGSTB 5
      • (1978) 2 BPR 9443
  5. Improvements In or Upon a Lot
    • Outcome: The court held that the term 'improvement in or upon [a] lot' must be read to be confined to works done 'in' or 'on', as opposed to simply 'in relation to', the Unit.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Whether improvements outside a lot can constitute improvements in or upon a lot within the meaning of s 37 of the Act

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that appellant had not breached any by-laws
  2. Order that the respondent consent to the Works

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of By-Laws

10. Practice Areas

  • Real Estate Law
  • Condominium Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Liu Chee Ming and others v Loo-Lim ShirleyHigh CourtYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 764SingaporeCited regarding the standard of review for appeals from the Strata Titles Board.
Dynamic Investments Pte Ltd v Lee Chee Kian Silas and othersHigh CourtYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 719SingaporeCited regarding the standard of review for appeals from the Strata Titles Board.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 367 v Lee Siew Yuen and anotherHigh CourtYes[2014] 4 SLR 445SingaporeCited for the interpretation of common property and parliamentary intent.
Lee Lay Ting Jane v MCST Plan No 3414Strata Titles BoardYes[2015] SGSTB 5SingaporeCited for the interpretation of common property.
Re Faber Garden (Strata Titles Plan No. 1047)Strata Titles BoardYes[1993] SGSTB 1SingaporeCited for the principle that common usage is required for common property.
Tsui Sai Cheong and another v MCST Plan No. 1186 (Loyang Valley) and othersHigh CourtYes[1995] 3 SLR(R) 713SingaporeCited for the principle that installations serving the exclusive use of a proprietor are the property of the proprietor.
MCST Plan No 958 v Tay Soo SengHigh CourtYes[1992] 3 SLR(R) 818SingaporeCited for the definition of common property.
Sujit Singh Gill v MCST Plan No. 3466Strata Titles BoardYes[2015] SGSTB 2SingaporeCited for the principle that common property is not for the exclusive use of a single lot.
MCST Plan No 3727 v Ho Kok Wei/Ng Xiang RuiStrata Titles BoardYes[2015] SGSTB 7SingaporeCited as an example of a case where the Board refused to grant an injunction for unauthorized installations on common property.
Mark Wheeler v The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 751 and anotherStrata Titles BoardYes[2003] SGSTB 5SingaporeCited for the interpretation of exclusive use and the installation of an air-conditioning unit on a wall of the common property as an example of exclusive use.
Anne Lee Heng T/A Tian Hup Chan Warehousing v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1360Strata Titles BoardYes[2011] SGSTB 1SingaporeCited for the interpretation of exclusive use.
Yap Sing Lee v MCST Plan No 1267Strata Titles BoardYes[2013] SGSTB 10SingaporeCited for the interpretation of exclusive use.
Automobile Association of Singapore v MCST Plan No. 918High CourtYes[2014] 1 SLR 164SingaporeCited to distinguish the concept of exclusive use.
Proprietors of Strata Plan No 1627 v SchultzSupreme CourtYes(1978) 2 BPR 9443New South WalesCited for the proposition that a proposal for alterations remains effective even if the works have already been carried out.
Re Bukit Timah Shopping Centre (Strata Titles Plan No. 1601)Strata Titles BoardYes[1996] SGSTB 6SingaporeCited for the principle that a proposal for an exclusive use by-law cannot be delegated to the management council for determination.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 2(1)Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 32(3)Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 33Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 58Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 111Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 37Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 101Singapore
Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Common Property
  • Strata Title
  • By-Laws
  • Exclusive Use
  • Management Corporation
  • Subsidiary Proprietor
  • Alterations
  • Improvements

15.2 Keywords

  • Strata Title
  • Common Property
  • By-Laws
  • Building Maintenance
  • Singapore
  • Condominium
  • Management Corporation

16. Subjects

  • Strata Management
  • Real Property Law

17. Areas of Law

  • Strata Titles
  • Land Law
  • Building and Construction Law