Soo Hoo Khoon Peng v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2906: Strata Titles, Common Property, and Balcony Screen Installation Dispute

In Soo Hoo Khoon Peng v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2906, the Singapore High Court dismissed an application by Soo Hoo Khoon Peng, a subsidiary proprietor, for permission to appeal against the District Court's dismissal of his claim against the Management Corporation regarding the installation of a screen on his balcony. The primary legal issue was whether the installation constituted exclusive use and enjoyment of common property and whether the screen was in keeping with the building's appearance. The court found that the screen was not in keeping with the building's appearance, thus upholding the Management Corporation's decision to disallow the installation.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore High Court judgment on a dispute over balcony screen installation, addressing strata titles, common property, and aesthetic uniformity.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Soo Hoo Khoon PengApplicantIndividualApplication dismissedLost
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2906RespondentCorporationApplication dismissedWon

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Christopher TanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Joseph Tay WeiwenShook Lin & Bok LLP
Mo FeiShook Lin & Bok LLP
Lin RuiziShook Lin & Bok LLP
Chen Chongguang DanielLee & Lee
Tan Hong Xun EnzelLee & Lee

4. Facts

  1. The applicant sought permission to install a screen on his balcony.
  2. The respondent refused permission, leading to legal action.
  3. The District Court dismissed the applicant's claim.
  4. The applicant sought permission to appeal the District Court's decision.
  5. The screen's brackets were to be mounted on walls considered common property.
  6. The respondent argued the screen was not in keeping with the building's appearance.
  7. The applicant conceded that parts of the walls were common property.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Soo Hoo Khoon Peng v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2906, Originating Application No 1017 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 355

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Hearing date
Judgment reserved
Filing of DC/OA 41/2023 in the District Court

7. Legal Issues

  1. Exclusive Use and Enjoyment of Common Property
    • Outcome: The court found that the installation of the screen constituted exclusive use and enjoyment of common property.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Impact of works on structural functionality
      • Aesthetic considerations for non-external facing structural elements
    • Related Cases:
      • [2018] 4 SLR 966
      • [2018] 1 SLR 790
  2. Aesthetic Impact on Building Appearance
    • Outcome: The court found that the screen was not in keeping with the appearance of the building.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Compliance with aesthetic-related clauses
      • Detraction from building appearance
      • Consistency with building appearance
    • Related Cases:
      • [2023] 3 SLR 1662
  3. Validity of Management Corporation Guidelines
    • Outcome: The court held that the burden of proof for establishing that the court should disregard the Respondent’s guidelines lay squarely on the Applicant.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Necessity, reasonableness, and proportionality of guidelines
      • Burden of proof for challenging guidelines
    • Related Cases:
      • [2019] 4 SLR 773
      • [2018] SGSTB 8

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order restraining the respondent from refusing to approve the applicant’s installation of the screen
  2. Declaration that the area of the applicant’s balcony where he intended to install the screen was not common property

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of section 37(4) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004
  • Compelling approval pursuant to section 111(a) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004

10. Practice Areas

  • Civil Litigation
  • Real Estate Law

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Lee Kuan Yew v Tang Liang Hong and anotherCourt of AppealYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 862SingaporeCited for the legal test governing when permission may be granted for an appeal.
UD Trading Group Holding Pte Ltd v TA Private Capital Security Agent Limited and anotherHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC(A) 3SingaporeCited regarding errors of law as justification for granting permission to appeal.
Zhou Wenjing v Shun Heng Credit Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2022] SGHC 313SingaporeCited regarding errors of law as justification for granting permission to appeal.
Abdul Rahman bin Shariff v Abdul Salim bin SyedHigh CourtYes[1999] 3 SLR(R) 138SingaporeCited regarding errors of law as justification for granting permission to appeal.
Essar Steel Ltd v Bayerische Landesbank and othersHigh CourtYes[2004] 3 SLR(R) 25SingaporeCited regarding issues peculiar to the facts of the particular case.
Portcullis Escrow Pte Ltd v Astrata (Singapore) Pte Ltd and anotherHigh CourtYes[2010] SGHC 302SingaporeCited regarding the test of importance being an objective one.
Anthony s/o Savarimiuthu v Soh Chuan TinHigh CourtYes[1989] 1 SLR(R) 588SingaporeCited regarding the circumstances for granting leave to appeal.
Wu Chiu Lin v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2874High CourtYes[2018] 4 SLR 966SingaporeCited regarding the test of what constitutes “exclusive use and enjoyment”.
Sit Kwong Lam v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2645Court of AppealYes[2018] 1 SLR 790SingaporeCited regarding the aesthetic role of outward facing walls.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 940 v Lim Florence MarjorieHigh CourtYes[2019] 4 SLR 773SingaporeCited regarding the operation of section 37 of the BMSMA.
Ahmad bin Ibrahim and others v The MCST Plan No. 4131Strata Titles BoardYes[2018] SGSTB 8SingaporeCited regarding the balance between aesthetic uniformity and the efficacy of safety equipment.
Prem N Shamdasani v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 920High CourtYes[2023] 3 SLR 1662SingaporeCited regarding the works in question would be in keeping with the rest of the building’s façade

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
Rules of Court 2021

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Strata title
  • Common property
  • Exclusive use and enjoyment
  • Aesthetic uniformity
  • Management corporation
  • Subsidiary proprietor
  • Screen installation
  • Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act
  • Safety equipment
  • Guidelines on aesthetic uniformity

15.2 Keywords

  • strata title
  • common property
  • balcony screen
  • management corporation
  • BMSMA
  • aesthetic uniformity

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Strata Title Law85
Civil Procedure75
Property Law65
Appeal40
Administrative Law30

16. Subjects

  • Strata Management
  • Property Law
  • Civil Litigation