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

Q: Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 284 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97), First Schedule to the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158), LTSA and the Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act (Cap 30), and Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2023] SGHC 284 High Court (General Division) 9 October 2023 HC/OA 404/2023 39 min read

9 cases cited (8 SG, 1 foreign)

Outcome

Application dismissed

I dismissed the application.

Source: [2023] SGHC 284, High Court (General Division), decided 9 October 2023. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	9 October 2023
Judge	Lee Seiu Kin
Charges / claim	Land
Outcome	Application dismissed
Counsel	Infinitus Law Corporation, Lee & Lee, Daniel Chen Chongguang, Lee Shu Xian, Leo Cheng Suan, Tan Hong Xun, Enzel

Source: [2023] SGHC 284, High Court (General Division), decided 9 October 2023 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Land — Strata titles — Section 37(1) of the Building Management and Strata Management Act 2004 (Act No 47 of 2004) — Meaning of “effect any improvement”

Practice Areas

Land

Judges (1)

Lee Seiu Kin Delivered

Counsel (6)

Infinitus Law Corporation Firm Lee & Lee Firm Daniel Chen Chongguang Counsel Defendant Lee Shu Xian Counsel Plaintiff Leo Cheng Suan Counsel Plaintiff Tan Hong Xun, Enzel Counsel Defendant

Parties (3)

Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1788 Plaintiff Aw Jieh Yui Midori Defendant Lau Hui Lay William Defendant

Case Significance

Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1788 v Lau Hui Lay William and another [2023] SGHC 284 is a grounds of decision of Lee Seiu Kin J in the General Division of the High Court, delivered on 10 October 2023 in Originating Application No 404 of 2023. The application, brought by the management corporation against subsidiary proprietors Lau Hui Lay William and Aw Jieh Yui Midori, turned on section 37(1) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 and the meaning of the phrase "effect any improvement". Lee Seiu Kin J traced how, before the BMSMA came into force, no provision required a subsidiary proprietor wishing to increase the floor area of his lot to obtain the management corporation's authorisation, a position changed by the enactment of section 37(1) and (2).

[2023] SGHC 284 explained

The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 1788 v Lau Hui Lay William & Anor ([2023] SGHC 284) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 9 October 2023. It is categorised under Land. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2023] SGHC 284 about?

The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 1788 v Lau Hui Lay William & Anor ([2023] SGHC 284) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2023. Its published catchwords are “Land — Strata titles — Section 37(1) of the Building Management and Strata Management Act 2004 (Act No 47 of 2004) — Meaning of “effect any improvement””, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2023] SGHC 284 consider?

The judgment refers to Evidence Act (Cap 97), First Schedule to the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158), LTSA and the Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act (Cap 30), and Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

The management corporation of the condominium The Summit sought recourse against subsidiary proprietors who had built unauthorised mezzanine attics in their unit before the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 came into force. The issue was whether s 37(1) of the Act gave the corporation any cause of action for improvements effected before the Act's commencement. The High Court held the corporation had no cause of action, dismissed the application, and awarded nominal costs of $1 to the defendants.

What was MCST Plan No 1788 v Lau Hui Lay William [2023] SGHC 284 about?

It was a strata title dispute before Lee Seiu Kin J, decided on 10 October 2023, between a management corporation and subsidiary proprietors, turning on the meaning of "effect any improvement" under section 37(1) of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004.

What did section 37 of the BMSMA change according to [2023] SGHC 284?

Lee Seiu Kin J explained that before the BMSMA no law required a subsidiary proprietor who wished to effect an improvement increasing the floor area of his lot to obtain the management corporation's authorisation, a requirement introduced by section 37(1) and (2).