Mrs Spykerman Chwee Wah Christina Nee Lim and others v Yow Jia Wen and others

Chuan Park is a 99-year leasehold development off Lorong Chuan. Owners formed a collective sales committee, and a collective sale agreement with a reserve price of $938m was signed by owners holding 80% of share value and strata area, but two tenders drew no bids. A first supplemental agreement lowering the reserve price to $860m reached only 72.20% of share value and 71.80% of strata area. After a developer expressed interest, the committee sought a revised price of $890m, deeming those who had signed the first supplemental agreement to agree to the increase, and owners holding a further 8.73% of share value signed a second supplemental agreement. On 5 July 2022 the committee signed a sale and purchase agreement at $890m.

Six owners who had not signed objected to the Strata Titles Board, which issued a stop order on 9 December 2022. Three authorised representatives of the committee then applied to the High Court in Originating Application No 869 of 2022 for an order that Chuan Park be sold. The objectors argued that the 80% threshold was not met, that the sale price and the method of apportioning proceeds were not arrived at in good faith, and that the valuer who prepared the apportionment report was not independent.

1. Whether objectors may raise grounds before the High Court that were not filed with the Strata Titles Board
2. Whether owners holding at least 80% of share values and strata area had agreed in writing to the sale at $890m under s 84A(1)(b) of the Land Titles (Strata) Act 1967
3. Whether the $890m sale price was arrived at in good faith
4. Whether the method of apportionment, and the valuer's independence, showed a lack of good faith

Objections re-filed in the High Court must generally state the same grounds as before the Board. Exceptions arise where the facts were unknown when the Board objection was filed, where the other side has accepted the issue being argued, and where the ground concerns a statutory prerequisite. All three new grounds were therefore considered.

Section 84A(1)(b) requires agreement in writing, not one document or a binding contract. Read together, the two supplemental agreements formed one supplemental agreement: the first provided that its signatories would be deemed to accept a higher reserve price without signing any further document, a clause that would otherwise be pointless, and Shunfu Ville supported adding the signatures. The court found that owners holding 80.93% of share value and 80.11% of strata area had agreed in writing at $890m. The objectors, not being parties, could not attack the agreements' validity.

The objectors bore the burden of showing bad faith by credible evidence. A traffic feasibility study was not required at that stage and might even have lowered land value. The higher floor area figure in a 2017 URA letter was only a development charge baseline; the Master Plan plot ratio of 2.1 governed, as URA confirmed in 2021, so the valuation rightly used it, and a sale condition referring to that baseline was not a guarantee. There was no evidence that verifying the as-built floor area would have shown more. The 90% valuation, 5% strata area and 5% share value apportionment produced the smallest premium variance, 2.86%, compared with 22.66% for the objectors' preferred method. The apparent anomalies were explained by unit layout, and nothing showed the valuer lacked independence.

The court allowed the application and granted orders in terms of prayers 1 to 5 and 8, approving the collective sale of Chuan Park under the sale and purchase agreement. The objectors' grounds all failed, and costs were awarded to the claimants, with quantum to be addressed in written submissions.