MCST Plan No 2827 v GBI Realty Pte Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
Judgment Date23 April 2014
Date23 April 2014
Docket NumberSuit No 920 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 406 of 2013)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2827
Plaintiff
and
GBI Realty Pte Ltd and another
Defendant

Woo Bih Li J

Suit No 920 of 2009 (Registrar's Appeal No 406 of 2013)

High Court

Civil Procedure—Limitation—Negligence—Latent damage—What was date on which cause of action accrued

Civil Procedure—Limitation—Negligence—Latent damage—What was date on which plaintiff had knowledge to bring action

Civil Procedure—Parties—Joinder—Writ amended to include second defendant—What was date on which second defendant became party to proceedings

This was an appeal from the decision of an assistant registrar (‘the AR’). The AR allowed the appellant's statement of claim and action against the respondent to be struck out and dismissed respectively, on the basis that the appellant's claim was time-barred.

The plaintiff-appellant (‘the MCST’) was the management corporation of an industrial development (‘the Development’). The defendant-respondent (‘Boustead’) was the contractor which designed and built the Development.

The construction of the Development was completed in 2003. On 31 March 2003, a temporary occupation permit was issued. On 8 January 2004, a certificate of statutory completion was issued. Between 2004 and 2005, the MCST made numerous complaints to Boustead about defects around the periphery of the Development caused by sinking ground. In 2007, the MCST engaged a surveyor to produce a report on the problem of soil settlement. The surveyor conducted a site inspection on 29 May 2007, and produced a report dated 20 July 2007.

On 27 October 2009, the MCST issued a writ against the developer (‘GBI Realty’). The writ claimed that GBI Realty was negligent, and that this resulted in the sinking soil at the periphery of the Development. The MCST did not bring a claim against Boustead then. The writ was subsequently amended to include Boustead as a defendant, and served on Boustead on 30 July 2013.

The sole question was whether the MCST's claim against Boustead was time-barred.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) The action was brought against Boustead on 30 July 2013. An action was brought against a person when he became a party to the proceedings. Under O 15 r 6 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (‘ROC’), a person only became a party to the proceedings when a writ, which had been amended to include that person as a defendant, was served on him. The writ, which was amended to include Boustead as a defendant, was served on Boustead on 30 July 2013: at [7] and [9] .

(2) Sections 6 (1) (a) and 24 A (3) (a) of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) (‘the Act’) could not apply concurrently. The MCST's claim against Boustead was in negligence; the applicable provision was s 24 A (3) (a) of the Act: at [22] and [23] .

(3) The MCST's claim was time-barred under s 24 A (3) (a) of the Act. The six-year limitation period under s 24 A (3) (a) of the Act commenced when the cause of action accrued. The cause of action accrued when the damage occured. There was a good case that the MCST's cause of action accrued as early as 30 March 2004, when the MCST first made complaints about the defects at the Development. But taking the MCST's case at its highest, the damage had to have occurred, at the latest, by the date the surveyor conducted the site inspection on 29 May 2007. The six-year limitation period had thus lapsed before the action was brought against Boustead: at [25] to [28] .

(4) The MCST's claim was time-barred under s 24 A (3) (b) of the Act. The three-year limitation period under s 24 A (3) (b) of the Act commenced when the claimant had the requisite knowledge to bring an action. The MCST had to have had such knowledge, at the latest, when the surveyor's report was brought to their attention. Even on the MCST's allegation that the report was brought to their attention on 22 August 2007, the three-year limitation period would still have lapsed before the action was brought against Boustead on 30 July 2013: at [33] and [34] .

(5) The MCST was not entitled to rely on s 29 (1) (b) of the Act. The provision postponed the commencement of the relevant limitation period where the claimant's right of action was concealed by the fraud of the defendant. Fraudulent concealment under s 29 (1) (b) of the Act was wider than fraud at common law. There was nothing to suggest Boustead was engaged in any form of concealment: at [45] to [47] .

[Observation: There were good reasons why a person to be joined to the proceedings ought to be deemed to have become a party to the proceedings at the date the amended writ was filed. In cases involving only a single defendant, the limitation period stopped running when the writ was issued. The date of service was irrelevant. When a person was subsequently added as a party to the writ, it would be logical to think that the date of service ought to similarly be irrelevant as to when the limitation period stopped running against that person. Unless there were good reasons to the contrary, the ROC ought to be amended to this effect: at [10] .]

Archer v Moss [1971] 1 QB 406 (distd)

Chua Teck Chew v Goh Eng Wah [2009] 4 SLR (R) 716; [2009] 4 SLR 716 (refd)

Ketteman v Hansel Properties Ltd [1987] AC 189 (refd)

Lian Kok Hong v Ow Wah Foong [2008] 4 SLR (R) 165; [2008] 4 SLR 165 (folld)

Pirelli General Cable Works Ltd v Oscar Faber & Partners [1983] 2 AC 1 (folld)

Seabridge v H Cox & Sons (Plant Hire) Ltd [1968] 2 QB 46 (refd)

Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) ss 24 A (3) (a) , 24 A (3) (b) , 29 (1) (b) (consd) ;ss 6 (1) (a) , 24 A (4)

Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) O 15 r 16, O 18 r 19

Limitation Act 1939 (c 21) (UK) s 26

Rules of the Supreme Court (Revision) 1965 (SI 1965 No 1776) (UK) O 15 r 6

Haridas Vasantha Devi (Sim Law Practice LLC) for the plaintiff/appellant

Tan Yee Siong and Priscilla Wee (Rodyk & Davidson LLP) for the seconddefendant/respondent

Henry Heng and Gina Tan (Legal Solutions LLC) (on watching brief) for the firstdefendant.

Woo Bih Li J

Introduction

1 This is an appeal from the decision of an assistant registrar (‘the AR’). The AR allowed an application for the appellant's statement of claim and action against the respondent to be struck out and dismissed respectively. After hearing arguments, I dismissed the appeal. I was in agreement with the AR that the appellant's claim against the respondent was time-barred. I now state the reasons for my decision.

Background

2 The striking-out application arose out of Suit No 920 of 2009 (‘the Suit’). The appellant, Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2827 (‘the MCST’), is the plaintiff in the Suit. The MCST is the management corporation of an industrial development at 59 Ubi Avenue 1, Bizlink Centre, Singapore 408938 (‘the Development’). The respondent, Boustead Projects Pte Ltd (‘Boustead’), is the second defendant in the Suit. Boustead is the main contractor which was engaged to design and construct the Development. GBI Realty Pte Ltd (‘GBI Realty’) is the first defendant in the Suit. GBI Realty was the developer of the Development. Boustead was engaged by GBI Realty to design and construct the Development.

3 The Development consists of a single seven-storey building with access driveways and other amenities that surround the main building. The access driveways and other amenities were defined as ‘the Peripheral Regions’ by Boustead for easy reference. I will adopt that definition as well. In the Suit, the MCST sought damages for negligent...

To continue reading

Request your trial
5 cases
  • Suresh s/o Suppiah v Jiang Guoliang
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 11 July 2016
    ...v Attorney-General [2014] 1 SLR 793 (“Yan Jun”) and Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2827 v GBI Realty Pte Ltd and another [2014] 3 SLR 229 (“GBI Realty”)) and computed the limitation period to include the day the cause of action accrued. The limitation period was thus held to ha......
  • Loo Kim Chwee v Luxury Green Development Pte Ltd and another
    • Singapore
    • District Court (Singapore)
    • 7 February 2023
    ...for determining when the tortious claim accrued in Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2827 v GBI Realty Pte Ltd and another [2014] 3 SLR 229 (“GBI Realty”). In that case, the development was completed in 2003. Between 2004 and 2005, the MCST began making complaints to the contracto......
  • Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 3322 v Mer Vue Developments Pte Ltd and others (King Wan Construction Pte Ltd and others, third parties)
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 2 March 2016
    ...site inspections from 29 October 2009 to 5 November 2009,6 relying on Woo Bih Li J’s decision in MCST Plan No 2827 v GBI Realty Pte Ltd [2014] 3 SLR 229. However, Woo J’s remarks at [27] and [28] on the date of site inspections being the latest date the damage would have come into existence......
  • Suresh s/o Suppiah v Jiang Guoliang
    • Singapore
    • Magistrates' Court (Singapore)
    • 2 October 2015
    ...should include the date on which the action accrued. In Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2827 v GBI Realty Pte Ltd and anor [2014] 3 SLR 229, Woo J considered the issue of sections 6(1)(a) and 24A(3) of the Limitation Act. At [28], Woo J computed the expiry of limitation for a ca......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
2 books & journal articles
  • Tort Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...to have independently caused the damage. Limitation period 25.89 Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2827 v GBI Realty Pte Ltd[2014] 3 SLR 229 was a case involving an application of the Limitation Act (Cap 163, 1996 Rev Ed) to an action in negligence. The plaintiff was the managemen......
  • Civil Procedure
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2014, December 2014
    • 1 December 2014
    ...been proceeded against for the purpose of the limitation period. In Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2827 v GBI Realty Pte Ltd[2014] 3 SLR 229, which was decided prior to the rule amendments, Woo Bih Li J endorsed the views of Lord Denning in Seabridge v H Cox & Sons (Plant Hire)......

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