MANAGEMENT CORPORATION STRATA TITLE PLAN NO. 4348 v HOI HUP SUNWAY PASIR RIS PTE. LTD. & 14 Ors
Key facts
| Court | High Court Registrar |
|---|---|
| Decided | |
| Judge | Vikram Rajaram |
| Charges / claim | Civil Procedure |
| Counsel | Christopher Chuah Law Chambers LLC, Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP, Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP, Titanium Law Chambers LLC, Aaron Lim Chor Yin, Alexius Chew, Anthony Wee, Francis Chan, Jackie Tay, Kenneth Loh, Michelle Choy, Stuart Ralph Lim Xiu Wu |
Source: [2025] SGHCR 5, High Court Registrar, decided — eLitigation. Updated .
Catchwords
Practice Areas
Judges (1)
Counsel (12)
Parties (16)
Case Significance
[2025] SGHCR 5 is a High Court Registrar decision dated 14 April 2025 concerning Civil Procedure, specifically addressing delay. The judgment was delivered by Vikram Rajaram. The case was brought by Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 4348 (plaintiff) against Aquatech Products and Services Pte Ltd and others (defendant). Legal representation was provided by Titanium Law Chambers LLC and Christopher Chuah Law Chambers LLC. The judgment cites 6 cases and references 1 statutory provision, namely the Limitation Act.
[2025] SGHCR 5 explained
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION STRATA TITLE PLAN NO. 4348 v HOI HUP SUNWAY PASIR RIS PTE. LTD. & 14 Ors ([2025] SGHCR 5) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court Registrar on 14 April 2025. It is categorised under Civil Procedure. 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 [2025] SGHCR 5 about?
MANAGEMENT CORPORATION STRATA TITLE PLAN NO. 4348 v HOI HUP SUNWAY PASIR RIS PTE. LTD. & 14 Ors ([2025] SGHCR 5) is a High Court Registrar decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Delay — Whether to grant an extension of time to file application for determination of a question of law”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.
Which legislation does [2025] SGHCR 5 consider?
The judgment refers to Limitation Act (Cap 163). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.
Summary
The third defendant architect in a construction defects suit against a condominium development sought an extension of time to file an application for summary determination of whether certain claims were time-barred. The court dismissed the application, finding the architect's delay of over a year in filing the application was not satisfactorily explained, particularly when the limitation issue had been raised earlier in the proceedings and the application was made after a former co-defendant was released.
What was decided in [2025] SGHCR 5?
[2025] SGHCR 5 (MANAGEMENT CORPORATION STRATA TITLE PLAN NO. 4348 v HOI HUP SUNWAY PASIR RIS PTE. LTD. & 14 Ors) is a High Court Registrar decision from 14 April 2025 addressing Civil Procedure, specifically delay. The judgment was delivered by Vikram Rajaram.
Who were the parties in MANAGEMENT CORPORATION STRATA TITLE PLAN NO. 4348 v HOI HUP SUNWAY PASIR RIS PTE. LTD. & 14 Ors ([2025] SGHCR 5)?
The plaintiff in [2025] SGHCR 5 was Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 4348, and the defendant was Aquatech Products and Services Pte Ltd, Cementaid (S.E.A.) Pte Ltd. Legal representation included Dentons Rodyk & Davidson LLP and Christopher Chuah Law Chambers LLC. The case was decided on 14 April 2025 in the High Court Registrar.
Which judge decided [2025] SGHCR 5?
[2025] SGHCR 5 was delivered by Vikram Rajaram in the High Court Registrar on 14 April 2025. The case concerned Civil Procedure.
What cases and statutes does [2025] SGHCR 5 cite?
[2025] SGHCR 5 cites 6 prior decisions. It references Limitation Act.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (6)
Related cases
Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Referenced in
Statutes interpreted in this judgment
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.
Read on eLitigationSource: eLitigation ([2025] SGHCR 5)