Lew Huey Jiun v Lee Yu Ru: Appeal of STB Decision on Water Leakage & Rental Loss
Lew Huey Jiun and Ong Pang Liang (Claimants) appealed a Strata Titles Board (STB) decision against Lee Yu Ru and Oh Eya Huay (Defendants) regarding water leakage from the Defendants' unit into the Claimants' unit. The Claimants sought damages for rental loss and rectification costs. The General Division of the High Court, presided over by Christopher Tan JC, dismissed the Claimants' application for an extension of time to file the appeal, finding the proposed appeal hopeless.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding water leakage from the Defendants' unit into the Claimants' unit. The court dismissed the appeal as hopeless, focusing on rental loss.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Lew Huey Jiun, Isabelle | Claimant | Individual | Application for extension of time dismissed | Lost | Carolyn Tan Beng Hui, Leong De Shun Kevin |
| Ong Pang Liang | Claimant | Individual | Application for extension of time dismissed | Lost | Carolyn Tan Beng Hui, Leong De Shun Kevin |
| Lee Yu Ru, Michael | Defendant | Individual | Application for extension of time dismissed | Won | Wee Heng Yi Adrian, Lynette Chang Huay Qin |
| Oh Eya Huay, Felicia | Defendant | Individual | Application for extension of time dismissed | Won | Wee Heng Yi Adrian, Lynette Chang Huay Qin |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Christopher Tan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Carolyn Tan Beng Hui | Tan & Au LLP |
| Leong De Shun Kevin | Tan & Au LLP |
| Wee Heng Yi Adrian | Lighthouse Law LLC |
| Lynette Chang Huay Qin | Lighthouse Law LLC |
4. Facts
- Claimants complained of water leakage from Defendants’ unit into their master bedroom toilet in March 2023.
- Claimants entered into a First Tenancy Agreement for five years at $6,000/month, subject to seepage repair.
- Defendants were unable to arrest the leak, and Claimants refused them further access to their unit on April 6, 2023.
- Tenant terminated the First Tenancy Agreement due to the unrectified leak.
- Claimants entered into a Second Tenancy Agreement for four years at $5,500/month.
- Claimants commenced STB 89 against Defendants, seeking damages for rental loss and rectification costs.
- STB awarded Claimants $10,000 for rectification works but dismissed the claim for rental loss.
5. Formal Citations
- Lew Huey Jiun Isabelle and anothervLee Yu Ru Michael and another, Originating Application 780 of 2024 & Summons 2752 of 2024, [2025] SGHC 1
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Managing agent notified Defendants of the leak. | |
| Inspection of Defendants’ unit carried out. | |
| First Tenancy Agreement signed. | |
| Tenant paid security deposit. | |
| Claimants refused Defendants further access to unit. | |
| Defendants completed applying epoxy layer. | |
| Defendants emailed Claimants about waterproofing completion. | |
| Management informed Defendants leak was not rectified. | |
| Tenant terminated First Tenancy Agreement. | |
| Second Tenancy Agreement signed. | |
| Claimants commenced STB 89 against Defendants. | |
| Parties entered into consent order before STB. | |
| STB delivered its decision. | |
| Claimants filed EoT application. | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Hearing held. |
7. Legal Issues
- Adducing fresh evidence on appeal
- Outcome: The court held that the fresh evidence sought to be adduced would not be admissible on appeal due to failure to meet the Ladd v Marshall requirements and conscious withholding of evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to meet Ladd v Marshall requirements
- Conscious withholding of evidence
- Extension of time to file an appeal
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for an extension of time, finding that the merits of the intended appeal did not warrant an extension as the appeal would be hopeless.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Length of delay
- Reasons for delay
- Merits of intended appeal
- Prejudice to the respondent
- Appeal against order made by Strata Titles Board
- Outcome: The court determined that the proposed grounds of appeal were primarily based on findings of fact, which are not appealable under s 98 of the BMSMA.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
- Points of law
- Findings of fact
- Causation of rental loss
- Outcome: The court found that the STB's decision on causation of rental loss was a factual decision supported by the lack of evidence adduced by the Claimants.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Failure to adduce evidence
- Rejection of admissible evidence
- Trespass and wrongful occupation
- Outcome: The court held that the Claimants' submissions on trespass were misconceived as they did not seek mesne profits for trespass in STB 89, and the case involved property damage rather than wrongful occupation.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Mesne profits
- Property damage
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
- Rectification of Leak
9. Cause of Actions
- Water Leakage
- Rental Loss
10. Practice Areas
- Litigation
- Strata Title Disputes
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ong Cheng Aik v Dayco Products Singapore Pte ltd (in liquidation) | High Court | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 561 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an extension of time for filing an appeal would be rejected if the merits are such that the appeal would be hopeless. |
| Falmac Ltd v Cheng Ji Lai Charlie and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 202 | Singapore | Cited for the approach of declining to consider fresh evidence as part of the record because the fresh evidence could not pass muster under the principles set out in Ladd v Marshall when determining if an appeal was hopeless. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the three requirements for adducing fresh evidence on appeal. |
| Anan Group (Singapore) Pte Ltd v VTB Bank (Public Joint Stock Co) | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 341 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of the term “special grounds” in the context of receiving fresh evidence on appeal and the applicability of the Ladd v Marshall requirements. |
| JTrust Asia Pte Ltd v Group Lease Holdings Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 159 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a party should not be allowed to retrieve lost ground by putting in evidence which they had consciously withheld at the proceedings below. |
| Ng Eng Ghee and others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 SLR(R) 109 | Singapore | Cited for the porosity of the boundary between the terms 'point of law' and 'question of law' in the context of s 98(1) BMSMA and the consideration of what constitutes a point of law. |
| THM International Import & Export Pte ltd v Comptroller of Goods and Services Tax | High Court | Yes | [2024] SGHC 97 | Singapore | Cited for the distinction between questions of law, questions of fact, and questions of mixed law and fact. |
| Edwards v Bairstow | House of Lords | Yes | [1956] AC 14 | United Kingdom | Cited for the two forms of error on a point of law: obvious error and a determination that no person acting judicially could have arrived at. |
| Liu Chee Ming and others v Loo-Lim Shirley | High Court | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 764 | Singapore | Cited for the caution against using the definition of 'errors of law' in Halsbury's Laws of England to justify an overly permissive approach in determining what qualifies as points of law. |
| Swordheath Properties Ltd v Tabet & Others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1979] 1 WLR 285 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that a claimant suing for trespass can claim compensation extending beyond the actual loss arising from the trespass. |
| Inverugie Investments Ltd v Hackett | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 1 WLR 713 | England and Wales | Cited for the proposition that a claimant suing for trespass can claim compensation extending beyond the actual loss arising from the trespass. |
| Zheng Yu Shan v Lian Beng Construction (1988) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [2009] 2 SLR(R) 587 | Singapore | Cited for the two categories of facts at common law for which a court may take judicial notice. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court 2021 |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 | Singapore |
| Stamp Duties Act 1929 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act 1893 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Water Leakage
- Strata Titles Board
- Extension of Time
- Rental Loss
- Rectification Works
- First Tenancy Agreement
- Second Tenancy Agreement
- Causation
- Fresh Evidence
- Ladd v Marshall
- Points of Law
- Findings of Fact
15.2 Keywords
- water leakage
- strata titles board
- appeal
- extension of time
- rental loss
- rectification
- fresh evidence
16. Subjects
- Strata Management
- Civil Procedure
- Real Property Law
17. Areas of Law
- Civil Procedure
- Appeals
- Extension of Time
- Land Law
- Strata Titles