The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 1788 v Lau Hui Lay William & Anor

The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 1788 v Lau Hui Lay William & Anor

The court held that the defendants completed the physical installation of the mezzanine attics in 1993, before the BMSMA came into force on 1 April 2005, and that 'effect' in s 37 BMSMA refers to effecting physical works; therefore an application to URA in 2021/22 to retain earlier works does not constitute 'effecting any improvement' under s 37 and the MCST has no cause of action under s 37; planning contraventions are matters for URA and do not give MCST a civil cause of action, rendering the application unsustainable.

Citation
[2023] SGHC 284
Parties
Claimant: Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1788; 1st Defendant: Lau Hui Lay William; 2nd Defendant: Aw Jieh Yui Midori
Court
General Division of the High Court
Jurisdiction
Singapore
Judgment Date
9 October 2023
Case Number
HC/OA 404/2023
Procedural Posture
Originating Application / Judgment (grounds of Decision)
Outcome
Originating application dismissed.
Legal Topics
Section 37 BMSMA, Meaning of 'effect Any Improvement', Retrospectivity, Planning Permission and Development Charges, Limitation Fraudulent Concealment
Source Language
English
Property Law Strata Law Planning Law Administrative Law Civil Procedure (limitation) Section 37 BMSMA Meaning of 'effect Any Improvement' Retrospectivity +2 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1788

Claimant

Lau Hui Lay William

1st Defendant

Aw Jieh Yui Midori

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Originating Application / Judgment (grounds of Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the mezzanine attics were completed before the BMSMA came into force on 1 April 2005
  2. 2 Whether contraventions of the Planning Act gave the MCST a civil cause of action
  3. 3 Whether an application to URA after 2005 to regularise earlier works constitutes 'effecting any improvement' under s 37 BMSMA

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants completed the physical installation of the mezzanine attics in 1993, before the BMSMA came into force on 1 April 2005, and that 'effect' in s 37 BMSMA refers to effecting physical works; therefore an application to URA in 2021/22 to retain earlier works does not constitute 'effecting any improvement' under s 37 and the MCST has no cause of action under s 37; planning contraventions are matters for URA and do not give MCST a civil cause of action, rendering the application unsustainable.

Court Disposition

Originating application dismissed.

Orders

  • Originating Application No 404 of 2023 dismissed.
  • Nominal costs fixed at $1 to be paid by the claimant to the defendants.