Siow Doreen and Others v Lo Pui Sang and Others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, first intervener, and Reghenzani Claude Augustus, second intervener)

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Choo Han Teck J
• Judgment Date: 01 October 2007
• Neutral Citation: [2007] SGHC 167
• Date: 11 October 2007
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1269 of (Summonses Nos 4254 and 4336 of 2007),Originating Summons No 1269 of 2007
• Year: 2007
• Published date: 08 October 2007
• Plaintiff Counsel: K Shanmugam SC, Ang Cheng Hock and Yew Zhong Ming (Allen & Gledhill LLP)
• Citation: [2007] SGHC 167
• Defendant Counsel: K S Rajah SC and Philip Fong (Harry Elias Partnership),C R Rajah SC, Burton Chen and Lalitah Rajah (Tan Rajah & Cheah),Dr Phang Sin Kat (Phang & Co),Andre Yeap SC, Dawn Tan and Dominic Chan (Rajah & Tann),Kannan Ramesh, Karam Parmar and Michael Chia (Tan Kok Quan Partnership),The first and third respondents in person
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Civil Procedure,Leave to intervene sought by purchaser and 13 of consenting subsidiary proprietors,Parties,Whether leave to intervene should be granted,Appeal against Strata Title Board's rejection of consenting subsidiary proprietors' application for en bloc sale of condominium,Joinder

1 October 2007 Judgment reserved.

Choo Han Teck J:

1 The proceedings before me concern the appeal by the Consenting Subsidiary Proprietors (“CSPs”) against the rejection by the Strata Titles Board (“the Board”) of their application for the Board’s approval for the en bloc sale of the condominium known as Horizon Towers. The appeal is on a single and narrow point of law, namely, whether the Board was right to reject the application on the grounds it gave. I note that the subsidiary proprietors who did not consent to the en bloc sale (“the minority subsidiary proprietors”) do not agree that the appeal concerned any point of law at all, but that is a question to be determined at the appeal itself. In the meantime, the purchaser, Horizon Partners Pte Ltd (“HPPL”), represented by Mr K Shanmugam SC, and a group of 13 members of the CSPs (“the 13 members”) represented by Mr Andre Yeap SC, applied for leave to intervene. Their applications were met with the strong objection of the CSPs, represented by Mr Chelva Rajah SC, as well as the respondents who were the minority subsidiary proprietors appearing in three groups, each group represented by Mr K S Rajah SC, Mr Kannan Ramesh, and Dr Phang Sin Kat respectively in the appeal.

2 Mr Shanmugam and Mr Yeap submitted that their clients have an interest in the outcome of this appeal and that they should therefore be heard. Mr Shanmugam claimed that his client, as a purchaser of the property, was the only one who had a real interest in seeing that the contract is performed and that the outcome of the appeal might have a “severe” impact on HPPL’s contractual action against the CSPs. Mr Shanmugam argued that HPPL should thus be allowed to intervene because it was the only party that could present arguments with respect to the purchaser’s perspective. Mr Yeap and Mr Chelva Rajah also claimed that their clients have no lesser desire, although counsel were unable to say if any of their clients had regretted entering into the contract, but that is really another matter. Mr Yeap said that three of his clients were directly concerned with the issue on appeal because the three pages containing the signatures of these three CSPs were left out of the application to the Board, and that has led to the assertion that an offence had been committed by the three. Mr Shanmugam and Mr Yeap argued that this court should allow their applications by virtue of Or 15 r 6(2) of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed). The rule they relied on provides as follows:

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Rule, at any stage of the proceedings in any cause or matter, the Court may, on such terms as it thinks just and either on its own motion or on application —

…

(b) order any of the following persons to be added as a party, namely:

(i) any person who ought to have been joined as a party or whose presence before the Court is necessary to ensure that all matters in the cause or matter may be effectually and completely determined and adjudicated upon; or

(ii) any person between whom and any party to the cause or matter there may exist a question or issue arising out of or relating to or connected with any relief or remedy claimed in the cause or matter which in the opinion of the Court it would be just and convenient to determine as between him and that party as well as between the parties to the cause or matter.

3 The arguments of the opposing counsel may be summarized as follows. They argued that HPPL was not a party who...