Ooi Say Peng v Koh Kai Chuan Raymond: Striking Out Claims in Construction Dispute

In Ooi Say Peng and Josephine Tay Siok Leng v Koh Kai Chuan Raymond and others, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal regarding the striking out of claims against the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants in a construction dispute. The plaintiffs, owners of 17 Richards Avenue, alleged damage due to structural works on the neighboring property at 19 Richards Avenue. The court allowed the appeal in part, striking out claims for mandatory injunctions against the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants but allowing the action to continue against them for damages based on negligence and breach of statutory duty.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed in part; certain claims for mandatory injunctions against the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants were struck out.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Ex Tempore Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court case regarding striking out claims against defendants in a construction dispute involving property damage and alleged negligence.

1.7 Decision Date

26 May 2021

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ooi Say Peng	Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Tay Siok Leng Josephine of Josephine Tay & Co Edwin Lee Peng Khoon of Eldan Law
Josephine Tay Siok Leng	Plaintiff	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Tay Siok Leng Josephine of Josephine Tay & Co Edwin Lee Peng Khoon of Eldan Law
Koh Kai Chuan Raymond	Defendant	Individual	Unknown	Other
Toh Lay Keng, Vivien	Defendant	Individual	Unknown	Other
Hup Soon Loong Construction Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Unknown	Other
Gan Geok San	Defendant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Choa Sn-Yien Brendon of Patrick Ong Law LLC Lim Jia Xin Kimberly of Patrick Ong Law LLC
Chu Chiang Yong	Defendant	Individual	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Gokulamurali s/o Haridas of Tito Isaac & Co LLP Linisha Kapur Supramaniam of Tito Isaac & Co LLP Ng Si Xuan Sancia of Tito Isaac & Co LLP
ZPT Engineering Services	Defendant	Partnership	Appeal allowed in part	Partial	Gokulamurali s/o Haridas of Tito Isaac & Co LLP Linisha Kapur Supramaniam of Tito Isaac & Co LLP Ng Si Xuan Sancia of Tito Isaac & Co LLP
Wee Joon Kin	Defendant	Individual	Unknown	Other

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Philip Jeyaretnam	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tay Siok Leng Josephine	Josephine Tay & Co
Edwin Lee Peng Khoon	Eldan Law
Choa Sn-Yien Brendon	Patrick Ong Law LLC
Lim Jia Xin Kimberly	Patrick Ong Law LLC
Gokulamurali s/o Haridas	Tito Isaac & Co LLP
Linisha Kapur Supramaniam	Tito Isaac & Co LLP
Ng Si Xuan Sancia	Tito Isaac & Co LLP

4. Facts

Plaintiffs own a property at 17 Richards Avenue.
First and second defendants carried out structural works on the neighboring property at 19 Richards Avenue.
17 Richards Avenue and 19 Richards Avenue share a party wall.
Plaintiffs allege the party wall was improperly hacked around November 2013.
Plaintiffs claim this resulted in cracking, water leaks, and compromised structural integrity.
Fourth and fifth defendants were qualified persons for architectural and engineering works, respectively.
Plaintiffs allege the grant of TOP and CSC was based on omissions and false statements by the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants.

5. Formal Citations

Ooi Say Peng and another v Koh Kai Chuan Raymond and others, Suit No 868 of 2019 (Registrar’s Appeals 53 and 54 of 2021), [2021] SGHC 128

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2013-11-01	Party wall improperly hacked.
2017-05-03	Temporary Occupation Permit granted for 19 Richards Avenue.
2019-01-31	Certificate of Statutory Completion granted for 19 Richards Avenue.
2019-08-31	Writ of summons filed.
2020-01-12	Statement of Claim (Amendment No 1) filed.
2021-03-18	Hearing date.
2021-05-10	Judgment reserved.
2021-05-27	Judgment delivered.

7. Legal Issues

Striking out claims
- Outcome: The court allowed the appeal in part, striking out certain claims for mandatory injunctions against the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants.
- Category: Procedural
Negligence
- Outcome: The court declined to strike out the causes of action in negligence, stating that the existence and scope of the duty of care is best determined at trial.
- Category: Substantive
Breach of statutory duty
- Outcome: The court declined to strike out the causes of action in breach of statutory duty, stating that the question of whether the statutory duty affords a civil remedy in damages is best determined at trial.
- Category: Substantive
Mandatory Injunctions
- Outcome: The court found that seeking mandatory injunctions against the fourth, fifth, and sixth defendants was unarguable and unsustainable and should be struck out.
- Category: Remedial

8. Remedies Sought

Damages
Declarations
Mandatory Injunctions

9. Cause of Actions

Negligence
Breach of Statutory Duty
Nuisance

10. Practice Areas

Commercial Litigation
Construction Law

11. Industries

Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
No cited cases

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Building Control Act s 8(1)	Singapore
Building Control Act s 9	Singapore
Land Titles Act s 104(2)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Party wall
Hacking
Redevelopment Works
Qualified person
Temporary Occupation Permit
Certificate of Statutory Completion
Easement for support
Mandatory injunctions
Negligence
Breach of statutory duty
Nuisance

15.2 Keywords

construction
dispute
negligence
party wall
injunction
singapore
property damage

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Civil Practice	75
Injunctions	70
Negligence	65
Breach of Statutory Duty	60
Torts	50
Nuisance	40

16. Subjects

Construction Dispute
Civil Procedure
Tort Law
Real Property Law