Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1938 v Goodview Properties Pte Ltd

Judgment Date09 October 2000
Date09 October 2000
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 29 of 2000
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1938
Plaintiff
and
Goodview Properties Pte Ltd
Defendant

[2000] SGCA 56

L P Thean JA

and

Chao Hick Tin JA

Civil Appeal No 29 of 2000

Court of Appeal

Land–Strata titles–Common property–Tenants in common–Proportionately abated damages–Whether action commenced by management corporation on behalf of some subsidiary proprietors effectively and substantively for benefit of all subsidiary proprietors–Land–Strata titles–Management corporation–Management corporation instituting action on behalf of some subsidiary proprietors–Whether necessary for all subsidiary proprietors to act together against developers in respect of common property–Whether management corporation entitled to sue developers on behalf of two or more subsidiary proprietors–Section 116 (1) Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed)–Words and Phrases–“All or some”–Section 116 (1) Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed)–Words and Phrases–“Jointly entitled”–Section 116 (1) Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed)–Words and Phrases–“The lots concerned”–Section 116 (1) Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed)

The management corporation (“MC”) of a condominium with 615 units instituted a representative action on behalf of 24 subsidiary proprietors (“SPs”) under s 116 (1) of the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed) (“LT (S)A”) against the condominium developers. The MC claimed damages for breach of the sale and purchase agreements in relation to buildings in the condominium, including the common property. The developers denied any breach and applied to strike out the action. They asserted that the claim was only sustainable if all the SPs in the condominium were purchasers who entered into sale and purchase agreements with the developers. The MC then applied to determine the question of whether they were entitled in law to sue the developers in the present action on behalf of two or more of the SPs who had entered into sale and purchase agreements with the developers. The senior assistant registrar heard both applications, allowed the developers' application and struck out the action. No order was made on the MC's application. The MC's appeal was dismissed by a judge in chambers, and they appealed. The issues before the Court of Appeal were: (a) whether in respect of common property, all the SPs of the condominium, being the owners of the property, had to act together or not at all; (b) whether the MC was entitled to sue the developers on behalf of two or more of the SPs; (c) whether the judge below was correct in holding that the operation of s 116 (1) was confined to two situations, namely: (i) when some of the strata lots were specially affected by or specially affected the common property in which case the MC could represent those affected SPs; and (ii) when all the strata lots were specially affected by or specially affected the common property in which case the MC could represent all the SPs; (d) whether the words “jointly entitled” and “the lots concerned” as used in s 116 (1) supported the holding of the judge below; and (e) whether the judge below erred in saying that the action was effectively and substantively for the benefit of all the SPs.

Held, allowing the appeal:

(1) It was not necessary for all the 615 SPs to act together in an action against the developer in respect of the common property. The sale and purchase agreements were made by the developers with each subsidiary proprietor severally and not jointly. In any case, the words “all or some” in s 116 (1) of the LT (S)A indicated that Parliament did not intend for all the SPs to act together at all times: at [12].

(2) Having regard to the legislative history and the plain words used in s 116 (1), it was not necessary that the SPs, whom the MC represented, had to be SPs of the strata lots which were “specially affected by or specially affect the common property”. The clear words in s 116 (1) did not admit of such a restriction or condition in the operation of that section and such a restriction or condition seemed to go against the legislative intent of that section: at [24].

(3) The term “jointly entitled” in s 116 (1) did not refer to a joint substantive right, since s 13 (1) of the LT (S)A deemed all SPs of the common property as tenants in common. The term “jointly entitled” was of a procedural nature akin to the joinder of parties in civil proceedings: at [27].

(4) The words “the lots concerned” did not refer to something in the common property specially affecting the subsidiary lots in the condominium. They referred simply to those lots of the SPs who were entitled to take proceedings or have proceedings taken against them, and not to the fact that there was any special damage affecting the lots: at [28].

(5) So long as some or all of the SPs had a cause of action against a party in relation to the common property, then s 116 (1) could be invoked by the MC to bring the action against the party in the name of the MC on behalf of those SPs: at [29].

(6) The action was not necessarily brought for the benefit of all the SPs just because the alleged effects were not limited to any particular lots. It was true that the common property was owned by all the SPs as tenants in common; however, so long as the 24 SPs had a cause of action, there was no reason why the MC should not be allowed to represent the 24 SPs and seek proportionately-abated damages: at [32].

Bradburne v Botfield (1845) 14 M&W 559; 153 ER 597 (distd)

MCST Plan No 1272 v Ocean Front Pte Ltd [1994] 3 SLR (R) 787; [1995] 1 SLR 751 (refd)

MCST Plan No 1279 v Khong Guan Realty Pte Ltd [1994] 3 SLR (R) 527; [1995] 1 SLR 593 (refd)

Roberts v Holland [1893] 1 QB 665 (folld)

RSP Architects Planners & Engineers v Ocean Front Pte Ltd [1995] 3 SLR (R) 653; [1996] 1 SLR 113 (folld)

Sheehan v Great Eastern Rly Co (1880-81) 16 Ch D 59 (folld)

United Dairies Ltd v Public Trustee [1923] 1 KB 469; [1922] All ER Rep 444 (folld)

Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed)s 116 (1) (consd);ss 13 (1), 33, 116

Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Act1987 (Act 16 of 1987)s 113

Rules of Court (Cap 322,R 5, 1997 Rev Ed)O 14r 12, O 15r 4, O 18rr 19 (1) (a)- (d)

Choi Yok Hung and Rodney Keong (Bih Li & Lee) for the appellant

Philip Jeyaretnam and Brendon Choa (Helen Yeo & Partners) for the respondent.

Judgment reserved.

L P Thean JA

(delivering the judgment of the court):

Proceedings below

1 The appellants are, and were at the material time, the management corporation of a condominium called Orchid Park (“the condominium”) located at No 91 Yishun Street 81. The respondents were the developers of the condominium which was completed sometime in 1994. The condominium has a total of 615 units.

2 The appellants instituted a representative action in Suit 1374/99 on behalf of 24 subsidiary proprietors of their respective units in the condominium under s 116 (1) of the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Ed) (“the Strata Act”) against the respondents. These 24 subsidiary proprietors had severally entered into sale and purchase agreements with the respondents for the purchase of their respective units. In the action, the appellants, on behalf of the 24 subsidiary proprietors, claimed against the respondents damages for breach of certain terms of the sale and purchase agreements in respect of faulty and defective construction of certain areas of the common property in the condominium.

3 The terms and conditions of the 24 sale and purchase agreements were identical in all material respects. The material terms relied upon by the appellants in support of the claim are the following:

  1. 8 (1) The [Respondents] shall forthwith erect in a good and workmanlike manner the building unit and the housing project together with all the common property thereof …

  2. 9 The [Respondents] shall at its own cost and expense cause to be constructed the roads, driveways, car parks, drains, culverts, sewerage mains, water works, sewerage plant serving the building unit and the housing project in accordance with the requirements and standards of the Building Authority and other authorities …

11 (1) The [Respondents] shall complete the building unit so as to be fit for occupation and remove all surplus material, plant and rubbish from the building unit and the housing project and deliver vacant possession of the building to the Purchaser on or before the 31st day of December 1997.

4 In the alternative, the appellants relied on an implied term in the respective sale and purchase agreements to the effect that the buildings in the condominium, including the common property, would be designed and constructed by the respondents to a reasonable, functional and safe standard and be reasonably free of defects.

5 The appellants claimed that the respondents had breached the express and/or implied terms of the sale and purchase agreements by failing to ensure that the buildings in the condominium, including the common property, were erected in a good and workmanlike manner...

To continue reading

Request your trial
2 cases
8 books & journal articles
  • STATUTORY INTERPRETATION IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2009, December 2009
    • 1 December 2009
    ...and Port Authority of Singapore[1999] 2 SLR 1; PP v Heah Lian Khin[2000] 3 SLR 609; MCST Plan No 138 v Goodview Properties Pte Ltd[2000] 4 SLR 576; Noor Mohamed bin Mumtaz Shah v Apollo Enterprises Ltd[2001] 1 SLR 159; PP v Tsao Kok Wah[2001] 1 SLR 666; PP v Loo Kun Long[2003] 1 SLR 28; PP ......
  • Defects
    • United Kingdom
    • Construction Law. Volume II - Third Edition
    • 13 April 2020
    ...Engineers v Ocean Front Pte Ltd [1996] 1 SLr 113 at [17]; Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1938 v Goodview Properties Pte Ltd [2000] 4 SLr 576; Management Corporation Strata Title Plan no 2297 v Seasons Park Ltd [2005] 2 SLr 613 at [29] and [33]–[34]. a management corporation may......
  • CITING LEGAL AUTHORITIES IN COURT
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2004, December 2004
    • 1 December 2004
    ...PP[1994] 3 SLR 33; Planmarine AG v Maritime and Port Authority of Singapore[1999] 2 SLR 1; MCST Plan No 138 v Goodview Properties Pte Ltd[2000] 4 SLR 576; PP v Tsao Kok Wah[2001] 1 SLR 666; Noor Mohamed bin Mumtaz Shah v Apollo Entreprises Ltd[2001] 1 SLR 159; PP v Loo Kun Long[2003] 1 SLR ......
  • Contract Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 December 2000
    ...Capacity In the Singapore Court of Appeal decision of Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1938 v Goodview Properties Pte Ltd[2000] 4 SLR 576, the plaintiff management corporation brought an action in contract for and on behalf of 24 subsidiary proprietors who had entered into direct......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT