Prem N Shamdasani v Management Corporation: Strata Title Dispute over Balcony Renovations
In Prem N Shamdasani v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 0920, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Prem N Shamdasani against the Management Corporation's decision to stop his unapproved renovation works at his Hawaii Tower unit. The works included removing balcony sliding doors and installing aluminum frame glass windows. The District Judge dismissed Shamdasani's claims, but the High Court allowed the appeal in part, except for the damages claim, finding the Management Corporation's refusal to approve the works unreasonable. The court ordered the Management Corporation to approve the unapproved works.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Strata title dispute over unapproved balcony renovations. The court allowed the appeal, ordering approval of the works.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prem N Shamdasani | Appellant, Plaintiff | Individual | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 0920 | Respondent, Defendant | Corporation | Appeal Dismissed in Part | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Appellant carried out renovation works at his unit, including removing sliding doors and installing aluminum frame glass windows.
- Respondent stopped the works, claiming they affected the building’s façade and structural integrity.
- Appellant sought an order from the District Court to restrain the respondent from stopping the works.
- The District Judge dismissed all the appellant’s claims.
- The appellant appealed against the DJ’s decision except for her decision on damages.
- The respondent had passed Additional By-Laws in 1990 and 2014 that are relevant to the present case.
- The appellant applied to the respondent to carry out extensive renovation to the Unit, but the application did not include the Unapproved Works.
5. Formal Citations
- Prem N Shamdasani v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 920, Registrar’s Appeal (State Courts) No 23 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 280
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Development completed | |
| 1990 Additional By-Laws passed | |
| Appellant started living in the Development | |
| 2014 Additional By-Laws passed | |
| Appellant applied to carry out renovation | |
| Renovation began with hacking works | |
| Respondent stopped all works at the Unit | |
| Respondent did not approve request to install glass curtains | |
| Appellant informed he could resume work if he carried out certain reinstatement works | |
| Appellant's contractor informed that the air-conditioner condenser would not be allowed to be installed on the external wall | |
| Respondent stopped the works in the Unit again | |
| Hearing of the appeal | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Strata Title By-Laws
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had breached the 2014 Additional By-Laws by commencing the Unapproved Works without the respondent’s written approval.
- Category: Substantive
- Requirement for Management Corporation Approval for Renovations
- Outcome: The court found that the Aluminium Glass Windows Installation and the Air-Conditioner Condenser Replacement do affect the appearance of the building the Unit is in, pursuant to the terms of s 37(3) of the BMSMA. The appellant is therefore required to seek the respondent’s approval to proceed with these works.
- Category: Substantive
- Management Corporation's Power to Approve Renovations
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent is empowered under s 37(4) of the BMSMA to grant approval in respect of the Aluminium Glass Windows Installation and the Air-Conditioner Condenser Replacement.
- Category: Substantive
- Breach of Duty by Management Corporation
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent has breached its duty under s 37(4) because it had based its decision not to grant approval on an objectively indefensible conclusion in so far as the criteria in ss 37(4)(a) and 37(4)(b) are concerned.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Order to restrain the defendant from stopping the Unapproved Works
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of statutory duty
- Restraint of trade
10. Practice Areas
- Real Estate Law
- Condominium Law
11. Industries
- Construction
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prem N Shamdasani v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 0920 | District Court | Yes | [2022] SGDC 161 | Singapore | The decision being appealed from. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 940 v Lim Florence Marjorie | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 773 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 37 of the BMSMA requires a subsidiary proprietor to secure a management corporation’s approval before carrying out improvements within the ambit of s 37. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4123 v Pa Guo An | High Court | Yes | [2021] 3 SLR 1016 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the focus of the test is not merely to ascertain whether the façade of the subsidiary proprietor’s unit post-renovation was similar in look to the façade of the adjoining units, but it must also be compared with the unit’s own original façade. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1378 v Chen Ee Yueh Rachel | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR(R) 630 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a feature permanently affixed to a balcony, and which resulted in the balcony looking different from its original state, does affect the overall appearance of the building. |
| The Owners Strata Plan 30198 v Barnes | Civil & Administrative Tribunal | Yes | [2018] NSWCATCD 8 | New South Wales | Cited for the meaning of the words “in keeping with the rest of the building”. |
| The Owners Strata Plan No 68976 v Nicholls | New South Wales Supreme Court | Yes | [2018] NSWSC 270 | New South Wales | Cited for the meaning of the words “in keeping with the rest of the building”. |
| The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 3631 v Richard Koh Chye Heng & Anor | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 79 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the improvement to the property leads one to conclude that it detracted from the appearance of the building, then one would concomitantly conclude that it also did not keep with the rest of the buildings. |
| Low Yung Chyuan v The MCST Plan No. 2178 | Strata Titles Board | Yes | [2019] SGSTB 3 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the overarching concern is really that of “uniformity”. |
| Sujit Singh Gill v MSCT Plan No. 3466 | Strata Titles Board | Yes | [2015] SGSTB 2 | Singapore | Cited for overlooking the fact that there are two limbs within s 37(4)(a) of the BMSMA, and focus on only the first limb “detract from the appearance”. |
| Ganges Portfolio Pte Ltd v MCST No 599 | Strata Titles Board | Yes | [2009] SGSTB 4 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that to allow a subsidiary proprietor to create a new side access opening for the unit would not be “in keeping with the appearance of the rest of the building”. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the principle of statutory interpretation that “Parliament shuns tautology and does not legislate in vain”. |
| York Region Standard Condominium Corp No 1076 v Anjali Holdings Ltd | Ontario court | Yes | [2010] OJ No 488 | Canada | Cited for the principle that it is not the function of the judge to assess the aesthetics of the changes made. |
| Durham Condominium Corporation No 90 v Moore | Ontario court | Yes | [2010] OJ No 4138 | Canada | Cited for the principle that great deference ought to be granted to the views of the condominium board, suggesting a wholly subjective approach. |
| Wu Chiu Lin v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2874 | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 966 | Singapore | Cited for the position in law that the court retains the ultimate supervisory jurisdiction to override the decision made based on two types of errors of law which espouse an objective basis for intervention. |
| Chia Sok Kheng Kathleen v The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 669 | High Court | Yes | [2004] 4 SLR(R) 27 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the management corporation acted capriciously or irrationally in coming to its decision. |
| The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 4066 v Wong Wei Kit Leslie (Huang Wei Jie Lesle) & Jasmin Lau (Liu Ying Xuan) | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 15 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must consider the appearance of the property as it presents itself to a person who might reasonably be able to view it and this must take into account any limitations as to the possible viewing locations and vantage points. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1786 v Huang Hsiang Shui | District Court | Yes | [2006] SGDC 20 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the management corporation had, through its inaction for several years, acquiesced to its presence. |
| Fu Loong Lithographer Pte Ltd and others v Mok Wai Hoe and another | High Court | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 218 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the mere fact that the BMSMA provides for the establishment of STBs to determine disputes under the BMSMA does not mean that the jurisdiction of the courts is thereby ousted. |
| Diora-Ace Ltd and others v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3661 and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 3 SLR 620 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the holding in Fu Loong Lithographer. |
| Loh Sook Cheng v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 508 | District Court | Yes | [2020] SGDC 159 | Singapore | Cited for the invocation of s 111 of the BMSMA (amongst other provisions such as s 88(1)) by the subsidiary proprietor as the basis for reliefs sought. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C) | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 s 32 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 s 37 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 s 37A | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 s 88 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 s 111 | Singapore |
| Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed) s 41 | Singapore |
| Limitation Act 1959 (2020 Rev Ed) s 6 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Strata title
- By-laws
- Renovation
- Façade
- Management corporation
- Subsidiary proprietor
- Unapproved works
- Additional By-Laws
- Aluminium Glass Windows Installation
- Sliding Doors Removal
- Air-Conditioner Condenser Replacement
15.2 Keywords
- strata title
- renovation
- by-laws
- management corporation
- balcony
- Singapore
- BMSMA
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Building Management and Strata Management Act | 95 |
| Strata Title Law | 90 |
| Property Law | 75 |
| Construction Law | 25 |
| Civil Procedure | 15 |
16. Subjects
- Strata Titles
- Real Property Law
- Condominium Law
- Civil Procedure