Cheung Phei Chiet v Jujun Tanu: Strata Title Dispute over Common Property
In Cheung Phei Chiet v Jujun Tanu and Cheong Yoke Ling, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute between subsidiary proprietors, Cheung Phei Chiet, Jujun Tanu, and Cheong Yoke Ling, concerning the management of Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 508. Cheung sought declarations and orders related to motions, common property alterations, and council member duties. The court dismissed most of Cheung's claims, except for ordering Cheong and Chang to reinstate the rear windows of Unit 53, finding their removal unauthorized. The court emphasized the importance of self-regulation and community living in strata developments.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Applicant's case dismissed except for one order regarding reinstatement of rear windows.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Strata title dispute involving Cheung Phei Chiet and Jujun Tanu concerning the management of common property. The court dismissed most claims, except for ordering reinstatement of rear windows.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cheung Phei Chiet | Applicant | Individual | Partial Judgment | Partial | Lim Tat, Subir Singh Grewal, Wan Chi Kit |
| Jujun Tanu | Respondent | Individual | Judgment for Respondent | Won | Kwek Yiu Wing Kevin, Yeo Teng Yung Christopher, Jason Yan Zixiang |
| Cheong Yoke Ling @ Zhang Yuling | Respondent | Individual | Partial Judgment | Partial | Kwek Yiu Wing Kevin, Yeo Teng Yung Christopher, Jason Yan Zixiang |
| Chang Chih-Tung, Charles | Respondent | Individual | Partial Judgment | Partial | Kwek Yiu Wing Kevin, Yeo Teng Yung Christopher, Jason Yan Zixiang |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Tan Siong Thye | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Lim Tat | Aequitas Law LLP |
| Subir Singh Grewal | Aequitas Law LLP |
| Wan Chi Kit | Aequitas Law LLP |
| Kwek Yiu Wing Kevin | Legal Solutions LLC |
| Yeo Teng Yung Christopher | Legal Solutions LLC |
| Jason Yan Zixiang | Legal Solutions LLC |
4. Facts
- The dispute arose from disagreements between subsidiary proprietors in a small development.
- Cheung Phei Chiet filed originating summons against Jujun Tanu and Cheong Yoke Ling.
- The disputes involved motions, common property alterations, and council member duties.
- Cheong Yoke Ling and Chang Chih-Tung were executors of the estate of Cheong Kim Koek.
- Motions were proposed but not passed at the 2021 Annual General Meeting.
- Rear windows of Unit 53 were removed without MCST approval.
- The front wall of Unit 53 was allegedly encroaching on common property.
5. Formal Citations
- Cheung Phei Chiet v Jujun Tanu and another matter, , [2023] SGHC 51
- Cheong Yoke Ling @ Zhang Yuling and another v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 508 and others, , [2020] SGDC 295
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Annual General Meeting held | |
| Extraordinary general meeting requisitioned | |
| Objection to calling of extraordinary general meeting | |
| Further letter setting out additional motions | |
| Notice to convene extraordinary general meeting served | |
| Summonses filed to restrain extraordinary general meeting | |
| Consent order recorded | |
| Fresh requisition submitted | |
| Notice and Agenda for the 2nd EGM sent | |
| Mdm Loh withdrew CA 6 | |
| 2nd EGM did not take place | |
| Letter sent regarding collection of chequebook and key | |
| Mr. Cheung and Mr. Param resigned from the council | |
| Letter sent regarding preservation of documents | |
| Police issued a letter stating investigations completed | |
| Notice and Agenda for the 2021 AGM circulated | |
| 2021 AGM held | |
| Trial in DC 2809 concluded | |
| Hearing Date | |
| Hearing Date | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Strata Management Act
- Outcome: The court found a breach regarding the rear windows of Unit 53, ordering their reinstatement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Unauthorised Alterations
- Encroachment on Common Property
- Failure to Obtain Proper Resolutions
- Related Cases:
- [2021] 5 SLR 1401
- Validity of Resolutions
- Outcome: The court did not rule on the validity of the resolutions as they were not passed.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Legality of Casting Vote
- Compliance with BMSMA Requirements
- Conflict of Interest
- Outcome: The court found no conflict of interest in the engagement of Legal Solutions LLC.
- Category: Procedural
- Acquiescence
- Outcome: The court found that the doctrine of acquiescence did not apply to remedy certain breaches under the BMSMA.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 3 SLR(R) 530
8. Remedies Sought
- Declarations
- Injunctions
- Orders for Removal
- Reinstatement
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of Statutory Duty
- Encroachment
- Unauthorised Alterations
10. Practice Areas
- Real Estate Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Salijah bte Ab Latef v Mohd Irwan bin Abdullah Teo | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 80 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court's power to grant a declaratory relief is discretionary in nature. |
| Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 112 | Singapore | Cited for the factors governing the exercise of the court’s discretionary power to grant declaratory relief. |
| Tan Eng Hong v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 476 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that for there to be a 'real controversy' to warrant the court's exercise of its discretion to grant a declaratory relief, the parties must show that there is 'a real legal interest' in a case being heard. |
| Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission | High Court of Australia | No | Ainsworth v Criminal Justice Commission (1992) 106 ALR 11 | Australia | Cited for the principle that declaratory relief must be directed to the determination of legal controversies and not to answering abstract or hypothetical questions. |
| Latham Scott v Credit Suisse First Boston | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 30 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there must be a useful or practical purpose to be served before the court would exercise its discretion to grant a declaration. |
| Tunas Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 562 | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 756 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of a resolution as a decision of a meeting of a corporate body. |
| Mu Qi and another v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 1849 | High Court | No | [2021] 5 SLR 1401 | Singapore | Cited regarding the improper use of procedures set out in s 33(1) of the BMSMA. |
| Yap Sing Lee v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1267 | High Court | Yes | [2011] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a management corporation of a strata title plan is a legal entity separate from the subsidiary proprietors of the lots comprised in the strata title plan. |
| Fu Loong Lithographer Pte Ltd and others v Mok Wing Chong (Tan Keng Lin and others, third parties) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 645 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a management corporation comprises the subsidiary proprietors collectively, has a flow-through liability structure, is subject to limited agency in the case of structural defects, and is empowered to represent its subsidiary proprietors in legal proceedings. |
| Chan Yung Cheong (trustee of the will of the testator) v Chan Chi Cheong (trustee of the will of the testator) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 2 SLR 67 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that any power under para 14 of the First Schedule to the SCJA must be exercised in accordance with law. |
| Fu Loong Lithographer Pte Ltd and others v Mok Wai Hoe and another and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 456 | Singapore | Cited for the purpose of the power of the chairperson of a general meeting of a management corporation to rule a motion out of order. |
| Chan Sze Ying v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2948 (Lee Chuen T’ng, intervener) | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 88 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it is important to discourage the use of the courts in petty quarrels among residents which ought to be resolved through mediation, or by simply voting the delinquent management council out at the next annual general meeting. |
| Genelabs Diagnostics Pte Ltd v Institut Pasteur and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 530 | Singapore | Cited for the definition of acquiescence. |
| Tan Yong San v Neo Kok Eng and others | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 30 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the doctrine of acquiescence is premised on the fact that the claimant has, by standing by and doing nothing, made certain representations to the defendant in circumstances to found an estoppel, waiver, or abandonment of rights. |
| Koh Wee Meng v Trans Eurokars Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 663 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that acquiescence is established in the situation where there is a continuing violation of the claimant’s rights from the beginning, and the claimant has knowledge of the same. |
| Sit Kwong Lam v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2645 | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 1 SLR 790 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that strata developments were founded on the concept of community living; and if this were to be harmonious, it required the limits of each subsidiary proprietor’s personal rights and duties to be clearly demarcated from the rights and duties of the management corporation. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 940 v Lim Florence Marjorie | High Court | Yes | [2019] 4 SLR 773 | Singapore | Cited for the interaction between ss 37(3) and 37(4) of the BMSMA, and how these provisions are invoked. |
| Prem N Shamdasani v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 920 | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 280 | Singapore | Cited for the interaction between ss 37(3) and 37(4) of the BMSMA, and how these provisions are invoked. |
| 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 to compare the unit’s own original façade with that of the improved façade. |
| Lennard’s Carrying Company, Limited v Asiatic Petroleum Company, Limited | House of Lords | Yes | Lennard’s Carrying Company, Limited v Asiatic Petroleum Company, Limited [1915] AC 705 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a separate legal entity has no mind or body of its own and can only act through natural persons. |
| Ho Kang Peng v Scintronix Corp Ltd (formerly known as TTL Holdings Ltd) | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 329 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that only human agents, either collectively or individually, would have a mind and, in turn, knowledge and/or intention that can be attributed to these artificial legal entities. |
| Bowmaker Ltd v Tabor | England and Wales | Yes | [1941] 2 All ER 72 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that everyone may waive the advantage of a law made solely for the benefit or protection of him as an individual in his private capacity, but this cannot be done if the waiver would infringe a public right or public policy. |
| Wong Yet Eng v Chin Cheng Foo | Malaysia | Yes | [1985] 1 MLJ 36 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the doctrine of acquiescence cannot be relied upon to validate an excess of statutory power. |
| Tenaga Nasional Bhd v Calsonic Compressor (M) Sdn Bhd | Malaysia | Yes | [2009] 8 MLJ 793 | Malaysia | Cited for the principle that the doctrine of acquiescence cannot be relied upon to validate an excess of statutory power. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Legal Profession (Professional Conduct) Rules 2015 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 (2020 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Rules of Court 2021 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 33 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 37 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 63 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 56 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 58 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 59 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 123 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 54 | Singapore |
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) s 61 | Singapore |
| Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Strata Title
- Common Property
- Subsidiary Proprietor
- Management Corporation
- BMSMA
- Resolution
- Motion
- Acquiescence
- Encroachment
- Alteration
15.2 Keywords
- Strata Title
- Common Property
- Management Corporation
- BMSMA
- Singapore
- Real Estate
- Civil Litigation
16. Subjects
- Strata Management
- Real Property Law
- Civil Litigation
17. Areas of Law
- Strata Titles
- Building and Construction Law