MC Strata Title No 958 v Tay Soo Seng
| Jurisdiction | Singapore |
| Judge | G P Selvam JC |
| Judgment Date | 11 December 1992 |
| Neutral Citation | [1992] SGHC 311 |
| Docket Number | Originating Motion No 115 of 1991 |
| Date | 11 December 1992 |
| Published date | 19 September 2003 |
| Year | 1992 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Koh Kok Wah (Wendy Wong & Koh) |
| Citation | [1992] SGHC 311 |
| Defendant Counsel | Steven Lee (Chan Tan & Partners) |
| Court | High Court (Singapore) |
| Subject Matter | 'Common property',ss 3, 10(8), First Schedule by-law 11 Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1988 Ed),Civil Procedure,ss 3, 10(8), 57(b), First Schedule by-laws 11 & 12 Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1988 Ed),Appeals,Strata titles,Removal of glass partition without notice or approval of management corporation,Whether Strata Titles Board had made error of law in its finding,Point of law,s 108 Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1988 Ed),Shopping unit in subdivided building,Whether removal of glass panel amounts to nuisance,Words and Phrases,Whether glass partition is common property,Land,What constitute errors of law,Common property |
Cur Adv Vult
The question for determination in this appeal is, whether a glass partition of a strata shopping unit in a building governed by the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1988 Ed) is part of common or private property. The building in question is Fu Lu Shou Complex situated at 140 Rochor Road, Singapore.
The unit in question was numbered 01-07. Unit 01-07 was flanked by unit
01-06 on the right and unit 01-08 on the left. The front boundary of units 01-06 and 01-07 were in line with each other. The front of unit 01-08 was recessed from unit 01-07. By reason of the recess part of the left side of unit 01-07 was exposed to a common corridor which abutted on these units.
When originally constructed the front of these units and the side partition of unit 01-07 were of glass construction. The glass partition was the common feature of the shopping units in the building.
Sometime in or before October 1990 the side glass partition of unit 01-07 was removed and a metal roller shutter was substituted in its stead. The roller shutter when drawn up provided a side opening to unit 01-07 smack in front of unit 01-08. The proprietor of unit 01-08 was displeased with the change in the side partition. He felt that the removal of the glass panel would cause confusion to the customers of other shops. He felt that he was entitled to display his goods on the corridor in front of his unit. If he displayed his goods in front of the side opening of unit 01-07 it would interfere with the side access to unit 01-07.
The proprietor of unit 01-08 made a complaint to the technical officer of the management corporation of the building. The matter eventually was placed before the management corporation. The management corporation wrote to the proprietor of unit 01-07 that the removal of the glass panel without notice to or approval of the management corporation was a breach of by-law 12 of the First Schedule of the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1988 Ed)(`the Act`). The by-law read as follows:
A subsidiary proprietor or occupier shall not make any alteration to the windows installed in the external walls of the subdivided building without having obtained the approval in writing of the management corporation.
The management corporation further required the proprietor to reinstate the glass panel within 24 hours failing which the management corporation would reinstate the panel and charge it to the proprietor account.
The proprietor replied stating that he had no intention of breaching the by-law and that he thought the glass panel belonged to him as he was the owner of the unit. But because he was required to give notice and obtain approval from the management corporation he submitted his plans for approval. The management corporation refused the application for approval on the grounds that (i) there had been a breach by reason of the failure to obtain approval prior to the alteration, and (ii) there had been a complaint and objection from the owner of unit 01-08. The proprietor then argued that by-law 12 was inapplicable. The management corporation then shifted its stance and said that the proprietor was in breach of by-law 11 of the First Schedule of the Act which read as follows :
A subsidiary proprietor or occupier of a lot shall not mark, paint, drive nails or screws or the like into, or otherwise damage or deface, any structure that forms part of the common property without the approval in writing of the management corporation, but this by-law shall not prevent a subsidiary proprietor or person authorised by him from installing -
(a) any locking or other safety device for the protection of his lot against intruders; or
(b) any screen or other device to prevent entry of animals or insects upon his lot.
The management corporation asserted that the side glass panel and supporting frame which were removed formed part of the common property. The proprietor disagreed. The dispute was not resolved.
In the circumstances the management corporation made an application to the Strata Titles Board (`the board`) of the building for an order requiring the glass panel and metal frame to be reinstated.
Before the board, the subsidiary proprietor applied for an order directing the management corporation to `consent to the proposal submitted by him to remove the glass panel and supporting frames and create an opening in their place`. Common property
It is crucial to decide whether the glass panel and the supporting frame were part of the common property, because under the Act :
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dynamic Investments Pte Ltd v Lee Chee Kian Silas and Others
...of the court. 11 Counsel for the plaintiff, however, cited an earlier decision by Selvam JC in MC Strata Title No 958 v Tay Soo Seng [1993] 1 SLR 870 (“Tay Soo Seng”), a case involving an appeal from a decision of the Board as in the present case where the learned judicial commissioner cons......
-
Ng Swee Lang and Another v Sassoon Samuel Bernard and Others
...not involve any question of law. 18 Mr Michael Hwang SC, counsel for the plaintiffs, referred to MC Strata Title No 958 v Tay Soo Seng [1993] 1 SLR 870 (“Tay Soo Seng”) where GP Selvam JC considered the then s 108(1) of the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1988 Rev Ed) which read as No ap......
-
Tsai Jean v Har Mee Lee
...173; [1997] 2 SLR 713 (refd) Mamata Kapildev Dave v Lo Pui Sang/Kuah Kim Choo [2008] SGSTB 7 (refd) MCST Plan No 958 v Tay Soo Seng [1992] 3 SLR (R) 818; [1993] 1 SLR 870 (refd) Medforth v Blake [2000] Ch 86 (refd) Mogridge v Clapp [1892] 3 Ch 382 (refd) Ng Swee Lang v Sassoon Samuel Bernar......
-
MCST Plan No 367 v Lee Siew Yuen
...might follow. The appellant was therefore ordered to repair the defects immediately: at [46] to [49] . MCST Plan No 958 v Tay Soo Seng [1992] 3 SLR (R) 818; [1993] 1 SLR 870 (refd) Tsui Sai Cheong v MCST Plan No 1186 (Loyang Valley) [1995] 3 SLR (R) 713; [1996] 1 SLR 603 (refd) Building Con......
-
EN BLOC SALES IN SINGAPORE
...4th Ed Reissue, 1989) at pp 121—122 para 70 referred to with approval by Selvam JC in MC Strata Title No 958 v Tay Soo Seng[1993] 1 SLR 870 at [22]. This volume of Halsbury’s has since been replaced by the 2001 edition but the statement of law remains largely similar: see para 77 of the 200......
-
A MAN’S HOME IS [NOT] HIS CASTLE —EN BLOC COLLECTIVE SALES IN SINGAPORE
...Strata Management Act 2004 (Act 47 of 2004). What constitutes errors of law are dealt with by GP Selvam JC in MCST No 958 v Tay Soo Seng[1993] 1 SLR 870. See also Koh Gek Hwa v Yang Hwai Ming[2003] 4 SLR 316. 67 Sim Lian (Newton) Pte Ltd v Gan Beng Cheng Raynes [2007] SGHC 84. 68 Yeo Loo Ke......
-
Land Law
...was more than mere enjoyment for the other occupiers. The cases of Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 958 v Tay Soo Seng[1992] 3 SLR(R) 818 and Tsui Sai Cheong v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1186 (Loyang Valley)[1995] 3 SLR(R) 713 were distinguished where the objects......