MCST Plan No 1788 v Lau Hui Lay William: Strata Title Dispute over Unauthorized Mezzanine Attics
The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1788 (MCST) filed an application against Lau Hui Lay William and Aw Jieh Yui Midori, the subsidiary proprietors of a unit in The Summit condominium, regarding unauthorized mezzanine attics installed in their unit prior to the enactment of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 (BMSMA). The MCST sought an order for the removal of the attics or, alternatively, payment of additional contributions to the management and sinking funds. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the MCST had no cause of action as the installation occurred before the BMSMA came into effect and the defendants had since obtained planning permission from the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA).
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Strata title dispute regarding unauthorized mezzanine attics installed before BMSMA. Court held MCST had no recourse against subsidiary proprietors.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1788 | Claimant | Corporation | Application Dismissed | Lost | Leo Cheng Suan, Lee Shu Xian |
| Lau Hui Lay William | Defendant | Individual | Won | Won | Daniel Chen Chongguang, Tan Hong Xun Enzel |
| Aw Jieh Yui Midori | Defendant | Individual | Won | Won | Daniel Chen Chongguang, Tan Hong Xun Enzel |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Lee Seiu Kin | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leo Cheng Suan | Infinitus Law Corporation |
| Lee Shu Xian | Infinitus Law Corporation |
| Daniel Chen Chongguang | Lee & Lee |
| Tan Hong Xun Enzel | Lee & Lee |
4. Facts
- Defendants installed mezzanine attics in their unit in 1993.
- Defendants did not obtain planning permission from URA before installation.
- MCST discovered the unauthorized attics in 2017.
- Defendants applied for and obtained URA approval in 2022 after paying penalties and development charges.
- MCST sought removal of the attics or payment of additional contributions.
- The attics increased the floor area of the unit by 63.58m2.
5. Formal Citations
- Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1788 v Lau Hui Lay William and another, Originating Application No 404 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 284
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Defendants received verbal confirmation to install mezzanine attics. | |
| Defendants issued an Option to Purchase for "Apartment Type B (6th Storey)". | |
| Installation of mezzanine attics completed around April or May. | |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1788 constituted. | |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 came into force. | |
| MCST discovered unauthorised mezzanine attics. | |
| Defendants applied to URA for written permission to retain the mezzanine attics. | |
| URA informed defendants of planning conditions to obtain written permission. | |
| Defendants paid development charge to the URA. | |
| URA granted written permission to retain the mezzanine attics. | |
| MCST filed originating application. | |
| Application dismissed. | |
| Grounds of decision issued. |
7. Legal Issues
- Applicability of Section 37 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act
- Outcome: The court held that s 37 of the BMSMA did not apply because the improvements were completed before the Act came into force and the act of applying for URA approval did not constitute 'effecting' an improvement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Retrospective application of s 37
- Interpretation of 'effect any improvement'
- Breach of Planning Act
- Outcome: The court held that while there was a contravention of the Planning Act, it did not give rise to a cause of action for the MCST and the defendants had since obtained written permission from the URA.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Development without written permission
- Contravention of planning regulations
- Limitation
- Outcome: The court made no finding on limitation as the defendants had not specifically raised the limitation defence and the MCST had no cause of action.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Fraudulent concealment
- Accrual of cause of action
8. Remedies Sought
- Mandatory injunction for removal of unauthorized structure
- Payment of additional contributions to management and sinking funds
- Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of statutory duty
- Unjust enrichment
10. Practice Areas
- Strata Management
- Construction Law
- Real Estate Law
11. Industries
- Construction
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4123 v Pa Guo An | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 213 | Singapore | Cited to define "floor area" in s 37(1) of the BMSMA as simply meaning "covered floor space" and not with reference to GFA. |
| Choo Kok Lin and another v The Management Corp Strata Title Plan No 2405 | High Court | Yes | [2005] 4 SLR(R) 175 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that subsidiary proprietors require authorisation of the MCST supported by a resolution of 90% of the subsidiary proprietors in order to cover their private enclosed space areas under s 37 of the BMSMA. |
| Cheong Ghim Fah v Murugian s/o Rangasamy | N/A | Yes | [2004] 1 SLR(R) 628 | Singapore | Cited for the principles regarding adverse inference under s 116(g) of the Evidence Act. |
| MCST Plan No 1375 v Han Soon Juan | District Court | Yes | [2004] SGDC 102 | Singapore | Cited and affirmed in Kentish Lodge for the reasoning that GFA did not belong to anyone and was not a right of such a nature that was capable of being owned by anyone. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | N/A | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Cited for the rule of construction that Parliament is presumed not to have intended an unworkable or impracticable result. |
| Hong Leong Bank Bhd v Soh Seow Poh | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 525 | Singapore | Cited in Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General for the rule of construction that Parliament is presumed not to have intended an unworkable or impracticable result. |
| Chua Teck Chew v Goh Eng Wah | N/A | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 716 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of fraudulent concealment under s 29(1)(b) of the Limitation Act. |
| Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v Herman Iskandar and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 1 SLR(R) 848 | Singapore | Cited for the interpretation of fraudulent concealment under s 29(1)(b) of the Limitation Act. |
| King v Victor Parsons & Co (A Firm) | N/A | Yes | [1973] 1 WLR 29 | N/A | Cited in Bank of America National Trust and Savings Association v Herman Iskandar and another for the interpretation of fraudulent concealment under s 29(1)(b) of the Limitation Act. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Titles (Strata) Act 1988 | Singapore |
| Planning Act 1987 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Limitation Act 1959 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Mezzanine attics
- Strata title
- Management corporation
- Gross floor area
- Planning permission
- Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act
- Urban Redevelopment Authority
- Subsidiary proprietor
15.2 Keywords
- Strata title
- Mezzanine
- Unauthorized construction
- BMSMA
- Planning Act
- URA
- Management corporation
16. Subjects
- Strata Management
- Real Estate
- Construction Law
- Planning Law
17. Areas of Law
- Strata Titles
- Building Management
- Planning Law