Cheung Phei Chiet v Jujun Tanu

The case arose from long-running disputes within a small strata development on Upper East Coast Road, made up of four ground-floor commercial units and four residential units above, managed by MCST 508. Mr Cheung Phei Chiet owns residential Unit 53A. Mr Jujun Tanu owns commercial Unit 55, and Mdm Cheong Yoke Ling and Mr Chang Chih-Tung, Charles hold commercial Unit 53 as executors of an estate. For years Mr Cheung and another owner, Mr Param, were the only council members. In 2021 Mdm Cheong and Mr Tanu joined a split council that never met, and the court found Mr Cheung and Mr Param ran affairs without them and, after resigning in November 2021, failed to hand over documents and assets. Mdm Cheong and Mr Tanu became the 2022 council.

When Mdm Cheong and Mr Tanu sought to convene meetings to pass motions, including motions giving their units one-year exclusive use of parts of the common property and excusing the reinstatement of Unit 53's rear windows, Mr Cheung brought Originating Summons Nos 808 and 809 of 2021. The motions were later put to the 2021 annual general meeting and not passed. Mr Cheung sought declarations that the motions were unlawful, injunctions restraining similar motions and any kitchen exhaust ducting, orders against the council's use of Legal Solutions LLC as solicitors, a duty to use wet-ink signatures, the removal of Mdm Cheong and Mr Tanu as council members, and orders to reinstate Unit 53's rear windows and remove its front wall.

1. Whether the court should declare unpassed motions unlawful or restrain the respondents from tabling similar motions
2. Whether the court had power to remove council members and whether they had breached their duties
3. Whether Legal Solutions LLC was in a conflict of interest in acting for MCST 508
4. Whether Unit 53's rear windows and front wall had to be reinstated, and whether acquiescence was a defence

Because the motions were never passed, a declaration on their validity would be hypothetical, and no strong public interest justified one; owners could object at a future meeting. Restraining the respondents from proposing motions would breach their statutory right as subsidiary proprietors under para 12 of the First Schedule to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA). Orders restating statutory requirements served no purpose. The court distinguished the Mu Qi case, [2021] 5 SLR 1401, and held that motions expressly limited to one year were properly framed as ordinary resolutions under s 33(1)(a). A blanket ban on kitchen exhaust ducting, or a fixed requirement for a 90% resolution, would be premature and inconsistent with s 33.

The court held it had no power to remove council members, since s 54 of the BMSMA provides a self-governing mechanism through a general meeting, and courts should intervene in strata quarrels only in the clearest cases. In any event no breach of the s 61 duties was shown: the motions conferred no benefit, the chairperson properly declined to rule another owner's lawful motions out of order, and administrative delays were largely caused by Mr Cheung and Mr Param's failure to hand over records.

There was no conflict of interest because Legal Solutions acted for MCST 508 and for the Unit 53 owners in distinct matters at different times, and the council was free to appoint solicitors. Nor was there any legal basis to require wet-ink signatures.

On the rear windows, the 1976 plans showed windows that were bricked up around 2004 without MCST approval, affecting the building's appearance contrary to s 37(3). Although the elements of acquiescence appeared to be made out, given Mr Cheung's long inaction, acquiescence could not validate an alteration MCST 508 had no power to authorise under s 37(4). The front wall claim failed: no encroachment onto common property was proved, there was no evidence it affected the appearance of a façade that was already non-uniform, and acquiescence would apply in any case. The court criticised both camps, particularly Mr Cheung, for litigating rather than resolving matters through mediation and the BMSMA.

Tan Siong Thye J allowed the applications in part, granting the order in OS 809 requiring Mdm Cheong and Mr Chang to reinstate the rear windows of Unit 53, and dismissed every other prayer. Costs were to be heard separately.