Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 367 v Lee Siew Yuen and anor [2014] 4 SLR 445

Introduction

This is a case where a dispute arose between the subsidiary proprietor of an apartment of Highpoint Condominium (“the Development”) and the management corporation of Highpoint Condominium (the “MCST”) over whose responsibility it was to rectify the defects in the structural beams located within the subsidiary proprietor’s unit. The dispute was referred to the Strata Titles Board (“STB”) which held that the MCST was responsible. The MCST appealed against the decision of the STB resulting in this action in the High Court.

Facts

Sometime in January 2012, the subsidiary proprietor (“the Respondent”) of a single level apartment unit in the Highpoint Condominium (“the Unit”) complained to the MCST that there were cracks in the concrete beams in the Unit. The MCST then engaged WTS Consulting Engineers (“WTS”) to inspect the Unit and the unit below. The report from the WTS stated as follows:-

 “The reinforcement steel bars including links and bottom bars of the RC beams below the bathtub/shower closet were found seriously rusty causing spalling and detaching of concrete covers of the beams. The bottom steel bars of the floor slabs were also found rusty in most areas causing detachment of concrete covers of the slabs. Such defects had significantly reduced the load bearing capacities of the floor structures and adversely affected the safety of the occupants. Apparently the corrosion of the steel bars was a result of failure or lack of waterproofing to the bathroom floors.

 An earlier description of the above defects and the need for repair was presented in our periodic building report dated 6 January 2011 and reiterated in BCA’s subsequent letter accepting our report. Apparently the defects have since deteriorated further to a state that requires repair to be taken urgently.”

Preceding the inspection of the Unit by WTS, the MCST had earlier engaged WTS to do a routine 10-yearly inspection as required by the authorities and WTS had already highlighted to the MCST that following their periodic review, minor structural repair was required for some areas to prevent further deterioration of the ceiling slab. Nothing was done by the MCST then.

Following the complaint and inspection by WTS, the MCST did nothing as it was unsure as to whether the rectification of the beams was
something which fell within its obligations under the Building Maintenance Strata Management Act (Cap 30C, 2008 Rev Ed) (“BMSMA”).

The MCST then proceeded to enquire with the Singapore Land Authority (“SLA”) for clarification on whether “structural columns and beams inside the apartment are the MCST’s responsibility to maintain, considering the building is over 30 years old.” SLA replied to inform that the MCST has a responsibility to maintain the beams and columns of the building in good and serviceable state.

The MCST referred the matter to the STB for determination. STB held that the affected beams were not part of the “common property” of the Development as they were within the Unit.
However, the STB found that the defects in the beams were structural defects under s30(5)(a) of the BMSMA which the MCST had to rectify.

The Appeal

 The aforesaid set the stage for the appeal to the High Court and the issues before the High Court were:-

1. a)Are the defective beams part of the “common property” of the Development under the BMSMA which the MCST must repair?
2. b)Are the defective beams “structural defects” under s30(5) of the BMSMA which the MCST must repair?

On Issue (a)

If the defective beams are part of common property, under the BMSMA, the MCST is required to rectify the defects in the beams. Common property is defined in s2(1) of the BMSMA as:

1. a)In relation to any land and building comprised or to be comprised in a strata title plan, such part of the land and building –
2. i)Not comprised in any lot or proposed lot in that strata title plan; and
3. ii)Used or capable of being used or enjoyed by occupiers of 2 or more lots or proposed lots…

 The affected beams in this case are located above the kitchen, the master bedroom and the bathroom in the second bedroom of the Unit. The Unit is a single level apartment. The beams are located in between the Unit and the unit above. The crucial word the Court examined was “comprised” and interpreted that to mean “included”. This was contrary to the interpretation by the STB who read “comprised” to mean “situated” thereby resulting in the conclusion that the beams were not part of common property since they were situated within the Unit.

The Court took the position that the beams were included in the Unit and part of a supporting infrastructure that holds the entire building together. Therefore the logical and obvious interpretation would be that the beams are common property as the beams are crucial in nsuring the structural integrity of the building. They do not serve any purpose or function for the Unit  per se but are instead critical to the Development as they support the units above it. Furthermore, the Court also took into consideration parliamentary intent behind the legislation – i.e. it was never the intention of Parliament to exclude such beams from the definition of common property under the BMSMA.

On Issue (b):

 The STB found that the defective beams were structural defects under s30(5) of the BMSMA which states that:

(5) Where –

(a) any part of a building comprised in a lot
contains any structural defect which affects or is likely to affect the support or shelter provided by that lot for another lot in that building or the common property; or

             …

 And the defect is not due to any breach of the duty imposed on any person by section 63(a), the management corporation shall carry out such work as is necessary to rectify the defect and may recover the cost of such work from any person who has a duty to remedy the defect as a debt in any court of competent jurisdiction.

 The BMSMA does not define what structural defects are. The Court took into consideration the definition of “key structural elements” as defined in the Building Control Act (Cap 29) which states that key structural elements  means “the foundations, columns, beams, shear cores, structural walls, struts, ground anchors and such other parts of a building which are essential for its support and overall structural stability.”

Furthermore, the definition of “structure” in the Oxford Dictionary defines structure as supporting framework or essential parts. The Court therefore held that the cracks in the beams were indeed structural defects which significantly affected the load bearing capacities of the beams and are structural defects under s30(5) of the BMSMA. Therefore the MCST is responsible for the rectification of the affected beams if the Respondent had not caused or permitted anything to be done to the affected beams resulting in the structural defects.  On the facts, the Court was of the view that there was no evidence to suggest that defective beams were the result of a willful omission on the part of the Respondents.

Conclusion

The Court held that not only were the defective beams part of common property under the BMSMA which the MCST is required to rectify pursuant to s29(1)(b)(i), the defects in the beams also constituted structural defects under s30(5) of the BMSMA requiring the MCST to rectify in the absence of any breach by the Respondents.

The Court pointed out that the MCST had taken a nonchalant attitude towards a serious matter involving the lives and safety of its occupants at the Development. Instead of urgently rectifying the defects and then subsequently dealing with the legal issues to ascertain who is to bear the cost of the repairs, the MCST had allowed the deteriorating condition to continue. The appeal to the High Court was dismissed and the MCST ordered to proceed to carry out the repairs immediately.