Bin Hee Heng v Management Corp Strata Title No 647

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 14 March 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGHC 41
• Docket Number: District Court Appeal No 37 of 1988
• Date: 14 March 1991
• Year: 1991
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tang Khin Tai (Lee & Lee)
• Citation: [1991] SGHC 41
• Defendant Counsel: M Sivakumar (Arthur Loke & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Annual general meeting more than 15 months after last annual general meeting,Interest thereon,'Persons entitled to vote',First Schedule para 16 Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 277, 1976 Reprint),Strata titles,Resolution carried by 'voice vote' and not 'show of hands',Whether there was quorum,Persons entitled to vote,Notice of meeting below mandatory period of seven days,Validity of meeting and resolutions imposing maintenance contribution,Words and Phrases,What was non-payment of contribution,First Schedule para 14(1) Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 277, 1976 Reprint),First Schedule para 12(1) Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 277, 1976 Reprint),Persons forming quorum,Arrears in maintenance contribution,'Contribution',Land,Contributions payable,Whether proper to disqualify on ground of non-payment,ss 3, 28(8), 29(1), 34 a First Schedule, paras 11, 12(1), (2), 14, 15 & 16 Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 277, 1976 Reprint),Whether included proxies,'Show of hands'

The plaintiffs/respondents are a management corporation (the corporation) constituted on 15 March 1983 under s 28 of the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 277, 1976 Reprint) (the Act). Although the appeal record, including the grounds of judgment, referred specifically to the 1970 revised edition of the Act, the section numbers cited were in fact those of the 1976 reprint of the Act, and to avoid confusion I will refer in this judgment to the relevant sections as they were numbered in the 1976 Reprint. The corporation consists of the subsidiary proprietors of 172 flats in two high-rise blocks (the Skyscraper flats) and one walk-up block (the Skyvilla flats) in a housing estate. The defendant/appellant (the appellant) is one of the subsidiary proprietors of the Skyvilla flats.

By s 29(1) of the Act, it is the duty of the corporation, inter alia:

(a) to manage and properly maintain the common property and keep it in a state of good and serviceable repair.

The funds necessary for this purpose are raised by levying contributions on the subsidiary proprietors in proportion to the share units of their respective lots. The contribution to be levied is determined at a general meeting of the corporation, and becomes due and payable on the passing of a resolution to that effect. The term `share units` is defined in s 3 of the Act as follows:

share units, in respect of a lot, means the share units determined for that lot according to its share value and shown as such in the schedule endorsed on the strata title plan.

By notice of meeting dated 23 February 1984, an extraordinary general meeting of the corporation was convened by Colliers Goh & Tan, the managing agents of the corporation, for 3 March 1984. Item 3 of the agenda set out in the notice of meeting was:

3 To consider and approve the following resolutions:

(i) That with effect from 1 April 1984, the maintenance contributions shall be levied on subsidiary proprietors proportionately with the share value of one (1) share each held by the respective strata lots, in compliance with s 34(3)(b) of the Land Titles (Strata) Act Cap 277.

(ii) That the sum of S$516,000 shall be raised towards the cost of restoration and redecorating works, reconstruction of refuse chutes, erection of perimeter fence and other remedial works to the common parts of the buildings payable per share unit in three (3) monthly instalments of S$1,000 per instalment on or before 1 April, May and June.

(iii) That the maintenance contributions payable towards the management fund shall from 1 April 1984 be revised to the rate of S$74 per share unit per month payable quarterly in advance at S$222 each on the first day of April, July, October and January. (See App II)

(iv) That the sum of S$172 per share unit shall be raised towards the purchase of new CATV system to be paid in full on or before 1 April 1984.

(v) That contribution for sheltered car-parking lots shall be charged at the rate of S$30 per lot per month, recoverable quarterly in advance at S$90 each on the first day of April, July, October and January.

(vi) That interest at the statutory rate of 10% pa shall be levied on all late maintenance contributions and any other payments that may in future fall due. A grace period of thirty (30) days shall be given, after which interest and all legal fees and costs incurred in the recovery of all arrears shall be charged to the respective proprietors.

The appellant who was the subsidiary proprietor of a Skyvilla flat received his copy of the notice on 28 February 1984. He apparently considered, inter alia, that the proposed increase in maintenance charges in accordance with the share value of one share unit for each subsidiary lot, which would bring the charges for Skyvilla owners to the same level as those for Skyscraper owners, was unfair to Skyvilla owners. The Skyscraper units were larger in area, and maintenance and repair costs for high-rise blocks with lifts would be more than for walk-up blocks. He wrote on the same day to other Skyvilla owners to attend the extraordinary general meeting and to vote against all the resolutions. He himself attended the meeting and took an active part in the proceedings; he also stood for election as the chairman of the meeting but was not successful. But out of his initial belief that his Skyvilla flat should not have to pay contributions at the same rate as Skyscraper flats, a belief which was later held by the court to be unfounded, and other minor grievances, including the wrong removal of an awning belonging to his flat, there developed several years of protracted litigation, presumably in the cause of principle.

At this extraordinary general meeting of the corporation on 3 March 1984, resolutions were passed for the purchase of the new CATV system, for contributions for sheltered car-parking lots, for the erection of a security hut, for the reconstruction of refuse chutes, for redecoration to the buildings, and for the levy of interest on the late payment of maintenance and other contributions. On the subject of maintenance contributions which was covered by the proposed resolutions under items 3(i) and (iii) of the agenda, the meeting failed to reach agreement. The minutes of the meeting recorded the result in the following terms:

6 Maintenance Contributions

The meeting was overwhelmed with disputes over this matter.

The House finally decided that the two resolutions appeared as items 3(i) and (iii) in the agenda be suspended and be substituted by the following:

`That the issue of maintenance contributions payable by subsidiary proprietors of Skyvilla and Skyscraper units be referred to the High Court of Singapore by the Management Corp and that resolutions (i) and (ii) be deferred.`

The majority agreed to the above proposal on the condition that the said referral proceeding shall be given a period of only three months to finalize, after which notwithstanding that the court`s decision has not been arrived at, maintenance contributions shall be payable by Skyvilla residents at equal rate to that payable by Skyscraper residents. Should the court decide in favour of Skyvilla residents, ie that they pay at a lower rate, then the amount paid in excess after the said three-month period shall be deemed as a loan from the residents of Skyvilla to the Management Corp

The present rates of S$65 for Skyscraper and S$35 for Skyvilla shall therefore be maintained for the quarter of April to June 1984.

On 23 May 1984 the High Court held, on the matter being referred to it in Originating Summons No 241 of 1984, that the proportion payable by each subsidiary proprietor for the maintenance of common property must be solely determined by the share value of the subsidiary proprietor and that any other form of levying contribution by a management corporation is ultra vires the Act.

The second annual general meeting of the corporation was called for 27 January 1985. Because there was no quorum, the meeting was adjourned to 3 February 1985 in the following week in accordance with para 12(2) of the First Schedule to the Act. At this meeting, a motion to confirm the minutes of the extraordinary general meeting on 3 March 1984 was put to a vote. At the request of the appellant, a poll was taken and the minutes were duly confirmed by the poll to have been properly recorded without amendment. The second annual general meeting also resolved by a vote `that the maintenance contributions payable towards the management fund shall be at the rate of $74 per share unit per month payable quarterly in advance at $222 each at the first day of April, July, October and January.`

Under s 34(5) of the Act, any contribution levied in respect of a lot is due and payable on the passing of a resolution to that effect by the management corporation, and in accordance with the terms of that resolution, and may be recovered as a civil debt from a subsidiary proprietor of, or his successor in title to, the lot. In the case of this estate, 171 of the 172 subsidiary proprietors paid the contributions levied on them. The appellant however refused to pay the amounts of the contributions which were claimed against him. On 11 December 1984, the corporation brought DC Summons No 11661/84 and on 5 June 1986 MC Summons No 11447/86 against him to recover the respective amounts due by him. Both summonses were consolidated and heard in a single trial in the district court. At the conclusion of the hearing, the learned district judge gave judgment in favour of the corporation for $3,293.23 and costs in respect of DC Summons No 11661/84 and for $1,800.71 and costs in respect of MC Summons No 11447/86. Judgment was also given in favour of the appellant for $700 in respect of part of his counterclaim in MC Summons No 11447/86 for $3,556.31 for the replacement of the awnings of his flat and for the costs incurred by him in clearing the blockage to some pipes. As can be seen, the amounts involved were not substantial. The appellant appealed against the whole of the decisions in DC Summons No 11661/84 and MC Summons No 11447/86 and also such part of the decision on the counterclaim which had only awarded the appellant $700, and not the remaining $2,856.31 claimed.

Before this court, the appellant submitted 68 grounds of appeal, and his counsel argued doggedly through each one of them, with a 181-page written submission, laced with footnote authorities. Solicitors are also officers of the court and, in preparing an appeal, must remember that they have a responsibility not only to their clients but also to the court. This dual responsibility extends to their ensuring at all times that their case is presented in a manner which contributes towards an early determination of the real issues. The preparation of the petition of appeal, in particular, should have regard to O 54 r 5 which provides that it `shall contain concisely and under...