Raman Dhir v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374: Strata Titles, Common Property Dispute

Mr. Raman Dhir, the appellant, appealed against the Strata Titles Board's decision dismissing his application against the Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374, the respondent, concerning water leakages originating from common property. The High Court, presided over by Justice Chan Seng Onn, allowed the appeal, holding that the reinforced concrete flat roof and the skylight are common property under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act. The court remitted the matter to the STB for rehearing, directing it to apply the statutory presumption under s 101(8) of the BMSMA.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding whether a roof and skylight are common property under the BMSMA. The court allowed the appeal, finding the roof and skylight are common property.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Raman DhirAppellantIndividualAppeal AllowedWon
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374RespondentCorporationAppeal DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Chan Seng OnnJudgeYes

4. Counsels

4. Facts

  1. Mr. Dhir owns a townhouse unit in The Balmoral.
  2. Water leakages occurred within Mr. Dhir's unit.
  3. The leakages originated from the RC flat roof, windows, and skylight.
  4. Mr. Dhir claimed the RC flat roof and skylight were common property.
  5. The MCST argued the RC flat roof and skylight were not common property.
  6. The STB found the RC flat roof and skylight were not common property.
  7. The STB found the windows were common property.
  8. The usable area on the RC flat roof was not part of the total strata area of the Unit.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Raman Dhir v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1374, Tribunal Appeal No 15 of 2019, [2020] SGHC 19

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Hearing date
Judgment reserved
Proceedings instituted

7. Legal Issues

  1. Definition of Common Property
    • Outcome: The court held that the RC flat roof and skylight satisfy the definition of common property under s 2(1) of the BMSMA.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Exclusive use vs. capable of being used or enjoyed
      • Part and parcel of the fabric of the building
      • Strata area delineation
  2. Statutory Presumption under s 101(8) BMSMA
    • Outcome: The court held that the STB failed to apply the statutory presumption under s 101(8) of the BMSMA and remitted the matter for rehearing.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Reversal of burden of proof
      • Evidence of dampness, moisture, or water penetration
  3. Appeal on a Point of Law
    • Outcome: The court held that both the Common Property Appeal and the Statutory Presumption Appeal raise points of law within the meaning of s 98(1) of the BMSMA.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Ex facie error of law
      • Misinterpretation of statute
      • Misdirection as to burden of proof

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Disbursements
  3. Declaration that the RC flat roof and skylight are common property

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Statutory Duty
  • Negligence

10. Practice Areas

  • Strata Management Disputes
  • Real Estate Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Sit Kwong Lam v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 2645Court of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 790SingaporeCited for the interpretation of 'common property' under s 2(1) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, emphasizing that both limbs of the definition must be satisfied conjunctively.
Ng Eng Ghee & Ors v Mamata Kapildev Dave & Ors (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) & another appealCourt of AppealYes[2009] 3 SLR(R) 109SingaporeCited for the principle that ex facie errors of law raise points of law subject to appeal under s 98(1) of the BMSMA, including misinterpretation of a statute or misdirection as to the burden of proof.
Wu Chiu Lin v MCST Plan No 2874N/AYes[2018] 4 SLR 966SingaporeCited for the principle that the physical location of disputed property within the boundaries of a unit does not automatically mean it is comprised in the unit.
Dynamic Investments Pte Ltd v Lee Chee Kian SilasN/AYes[2008] 1 SLR(R) 729SingaporeCited regarding ex facie errors of law.
Liu Chee Ming v Loo-Lim ShirleyN/AYes[2008] 2 SLR(R) 765SingaporeCited regarding ex facie errors of law.
Liew Soon Fook Michael and another v Yi Kai Development Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 88SingaporeCited regarding the inclusion of a roof within the computation of a cluster house’s strata area means that the roof is not common property, and that the owner has exclusive ownership of the roof.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Land Surveyors Rules 1976 (S 143/1976)

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed)Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 2(1)Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 2(9)Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 101(8)Singapore
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act s 98(1)Singapore
Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap. 158)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Common Property
  • Strata Title
  • Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act
  • Reinforced Concrete Flat Roof
  • Skylight
  • Statutory Presumption
  • Strata Titles Board
  • Exclusive Use
  • Strata Area
  • Ex Facie Error of Law

15.2 Keywords

  • strata title
  • common property
  • BMSMA
  • water leakage
  • management corporation
  • Singapore
  • appeal
  • property law

17. Areas of Law

16. Subjects

  • Strata Management
  • Property Rights
  • Civil Appeals