Tsui Sai Cheong and Another v Management Corp Strata Title No 1186 (Loyang Valley) and Others

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Warren Khoo L H J
• Judgment Date: 02 November 1995
• Neutral Citation: [1995] SGHC 260
• Docket Number: Originating Motion No 121 of 1994
• Date: 02 November 1995
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1995
• Plaintiff Counsel: Tan Cheng Han and Andre Maniam (Drew & Napier)
• Citation: [1995] SGHC 260
• Defendant Counsel: Anna Oei (Lim, Ang & Wong),Troy Yeo (BL Ong, Yeo & Associates),Andrew Tan (Tan Tiong Gee & Co)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Whether part of individual service pipe embedded in common property could be considered common property,Common property,Defects,Corrosion of individual service pipeembedded in common property,Land,ss 18 & 20 Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1988 Ed),Strata titles,Duty to repair,Whether duty of management corporation or subsidiary proprietor

There were three appeals from decisions of the Strata Titles Board, two against individual subsidiary proprietors and one against the management corporation. The two against individual subsidiary proprietors were withdrawn in the course of submissions, and I accordingly ordered that they be dismissed with costs, leaving the one against the management corporation. I dismissed that, too, with costs. I gave my reasons, indicating to counsel that I would incorporate them in a written judgment. This judgment deals only with the appeal against the management corporation.

The appellants are the subsidiary proprietors of a unit on the sixth floor of a block of the Loyang Valley condominium. The various floors of this block share a common water riser pipe, from which a service pipe is connected to each of the two units on that floor on either side of a lift landing. Each service pipe serves exclusively the unit to which it is connected. It is embedded in the concrete floor both inside and outside the unit. It is common ground that the concrete floor outside the unit in which the service pipe is embedded is common property under the control and management of the management corporation.

For the purpose of this appeal, it is sufficient only to state that a section of the service pipe embedded outside the appellants` unit was corroded and water from the leakage seeped down to the electrical and telecommunication fittings in the electrical riser and telecom riser on the floor below and caused serious damage. As the appellants refused to have the service pipe repaired, the management corporation had to incur cost and expense to do so. It sought to recover them from the appellants. The section of the pipe inside the appellants` unit also leaked and caused damage, but that is not the subject of the appeal now under consideration.

An appeal lies to this court from a decision of the Board only on a point of law. The point that is clearly a point of law that arises on this appeal is whether the section of the pipe in question was common property and whose responsibility it was to repair it.

The Board took the view that the pipe was the private property of the appellants and that they were solely responsible for the repair. However, as the pipe was embedded in common property, the Board felt that it would be too onerous to require the appellants to undertake the work of opening up the common floor and carrying out the repair. The Board, therefore, took the view that the management corporation should carry out such repairs and then bill the individual owner. It stated:

In law, the duty of control, management, administration, repair and maintenance of common property is imposed upon the management corporation. The Board is therefore of the opinion that where the pipes or other articles which are embedded in the common property, irrespective of whether the pipes or the articles are for the exclusive use of a particular subsidiary proprietor, if there is any defect, the management corporation should carry out the rectification work first and subsequently bill the subsidiary proprietor who had exclusive use of them.

Counsel for the appellants concedes that a water pipe that serves exclusively one unit in a condominium is generally not common property. In a previous case before the Board, STB No 26 of 1992 (Faber Gardens), the Board had indeed held that water pipes delivering...