Cold Storage Singapore (1983) Pte Ltd v Management Corp of Chancery Court and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Sinnathuray J
• Judgment Date: 30 December 1991
• Neutral Citation: [1991] SGCA 49
• Citation: [1991] SGCA 49
• Defendant Counsel: Chua Lee Ming (Lee & Lee),David Wee (Donaldson & Burkinshaw),Ong Bock Kee (Choo & Joethy),Terry Ang (Terry Ang & Partners)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Plaintiff Counsel: K Shanmugam and Sushil Nair Sukumaran (Drew & Napier)
• Date: 30 December 1991
• Docket Number: Civil Appeal No 84 of 1989
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Parking fee imposed by management committee of housing estate on non-resident motorists,Whether tenant entitled to claim an absolute right for their supermarket customers to park free of charge,Matters in affidavit within the knowledge of party affirming affidavit,Landlord and Tenant,Failure to contradict affidavit did not give rise to inference that statements are admitted to be true or accepted as evidence,Affidavits,Covenants,Parking scheme affecting tenant's business,Uncontradicted affidavit,Civil Procedure,Quiet enjoyment,Whether derogation of tenancy and breach of quiet enjoyment

This was an appeal against the decision of Chan Sek Keong J in which he dismissed the claim of the appellants for declarations and an injunction against the respondents relating to a car-parking scheme in a housing estate called Chancery Court. At the conclusion of the hearing we dismissed the appeal with costs. We now give our reasons.

The facts have been set out in great detail in the judgment of Chan Sek Keong J,1 and may be briefly summarized as follows. Chancery Court has a number of shopping units and about 150 residential units. The appellants are a monthly tenant of a shopping unit known as block 36H, Dunearn Road #01-44, Singapore 1130 where they operate a supermarket. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the appellants undertook to use the premises as a supermarket and for no other purposes. The first respondent is a body corporate comprising the owners of all the units of Chancery Court, and the second to the thirteenth respondents were at the material time members of the management committee of the first respondent which managed the housing estate.

On 19 April 1987, at the extraordinary general meeting of the first respondent, a resolution was passed which introduced a car-parking scheme (`parking scheme`) under which, among other things, all non-resident motorists entering the housing estate were required to pay a parking fee of $1. Following the passing of the resolution, the appellants became concerned with the effect of the parking scheme on their business and negotiated with the management committee of the first respondent. As a result, an agreement dated 1 April 1988 was executed between the appellants and the first respondent. Under the agreement, the appellants agreed, among other things, to provide attendants at their cost to man the car park booth at certain times and to pay 56% of the cost of resurfacing and maintenance of the roads within Chancery Court, and the agreement was for a term of one year subject to termination by either party giving three months` notice in writing to the other party. On the expiry of the agreement on 31 March 1989, the management committee of the first respondent implemented the parking scheme. The appellants protested against the implementation of the parking scheme, and the correspondence between the parties which followed unfortunately did not lead to any amicable resolution of their differences. The appellants then initiated proceedings against the respondents by way of an...