Case Details
- Citation: [2023] SGHC 51
- Title: Cheung Phei Chiet v Jujun Tanu and another matter
- Court: High Court of the Republic of Singapore (General Division)
- Date of decision: 2 March 2023
- Originating Summons: OS 808 of 2021 and OS 809 of 2021
- Judges: Tan Siong Thye J
- Applicant: Cheung Phei Chiet (subsidiary proprietor of Unit 53A)
- Respondent (OS 808): Jujun Tanu (subsidiary proprietor of Unit 55)
- Respondents (OS 809): (1) Cheong Yoke Ling @ Zhang Yuling; (2) Chang Chih-Tung, Charles (Executors of the Estate of Cheong Kim Koek, deceased)
- Legal area: Land — Strata titles
- Statutes referenced: First Schedule to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act; First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act; First Schedule to the Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969
- Other procedural history noted: Judgment reserved after hearing dates of 20 July 2022 and 17 January 2023
- Length: 134 pages; 38,248 words
- Cases cited: [2020] SGDC 295; [2023] SGHC 51
Summary
In Cheung Phei Chiet v Jujun Tanu and another matter [2023] SGHC 51, the High Court dealt with a long-running and highly acrimonious dispute between two opposing groups of subsidiary proprietors in a small strata development along Upper East Coast Road. The development, known as MCST 508, had only eight units (four commercial on the ground floor and four residential above). Yet the parties’ disagreements escalated into repeated litigation across multiple court levels, culminating in two originating summonses brought by Mr Cheung against Mr Tanu and, in a separate summons, against Mdm Cheong and Mr Chang (as executors/trustees for the estate of a deceased subsidiary proprietor).
The applications sought a wide range of declaratory and injunctive reliefs, including declarations that certain motions were unlawful or void, orders restraining the respondents from raising or implementing proposed resolutions, and orders to secure compliance with statutory requirements under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (“BMSMA”). The court also addressed whether it had power to remove council members, and it considered further reliefs relating to alleged unauthorised alterations to parts of Unit 53.
Ultimately, the court granted substantial procedural and compliance-oriented reliefs. It restrained the respondents from pursuing certain proposed resolutions and required steps to ensure statutory compliance. The court also clarified the limits of its powers in relation to removal of management corporation council members, and it made orders concerning reinstatement of portions of Unit 53 that were found to have been altered without proper authority.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The dispute arose within MCST 508, the management corporation strata title plan for the Development. The applicant, Mr Cheung, owned Unit 53A, a residential unit located directly above Unit 53. The respondents were subsidiary proprietors of Units 55 and 53. Specifically, in OS 808, the respondent was Mr Jujun Tanu, who owned Unit 55 (a commercial unit). In OS 809, the respondents were Mdm Cheong and Mr Chang, who held Unit 53 as executors and trustees for the estate of Mr Cheong Kim Koek, with the title transferred to them in January 2021.
Although only Mr Cheung and the respondents were parties to the originating summonses, the background involved other subsidiary proprietors who had featured in earlier disputes. These included Mr Param and Ms Aroul (subsidiary proprietors of Unit 59A) and One Metal Investment Holdings Pte Ltd (the current subsidiary proprietor of Unit 59, previously held by Mdm Loh Sook Cheng). The court described the overall environment as one of sustained hostility, with the parties’ relationships having deteriorated to the point that they repeatedly resorted to court proceedings to resolve management disagreements.
A key factual driver was the formation and functioning of the 2021 council. Prior to 2021, Mr Cheung and Mr Param were the only council members from 2017 to 2020. At the 2020 AGM, Mr Tanu attended via proxy. The meeting was acrimonious: Mr Tanu’s proxy was allegedly not allowed to speak or vote because he was in arrears. When the AGM came to the question of forming the new council for 2021, Mr Cheung and Mr Param took the position that Mr Tanu was not eligible due to arrears, and that Mdm Cheong was not eligible because she was only an executor. Despite these objections, Mr Tanu and Mdm Cheong eventually became council members for the 2021 council.
However, the 2021 council was “split” and never functioned effectively. The court found that attempts to hold council meetings—whether physically or by correspondence—were futile. As a result, the 2021 council never held its first council meeting, and no collective decisions were made in 2021. This led to a practical governance vacuum. Mr Cheung and Mr Param, acting without involving the other side, proceeded to make decisions for MCST 508 on their own accord, including appointing solicitors (Aequitas) to act for the management corporation in earlier proceedings. The court’s narrative indicates that these governance failures and unilateral actions formed the backdrop for later disputes about the legality of motions and the legitimacy of council actions.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The originating summonses raised multiple legal questions, but the core issues can be grouped into several themes. First, the court had to determine whether certain motions and proposed resolutions sought by the respondents were unlawful, unenforceable, invalid, and/or void. This required the court to examine the statutory framework governing strata management and the procedural requirements for council and general meeting actions under the BMSMA.
Second, the court had to consider the scope of its discretion to grant declaratory relief. Even where a dispute exists, declaratory relief is not automatic; the court must decide whether it is appropriate to make declarations in the circumstances, particularly where the parties’ conduct and the governance context suggest that injunctive or compliance orders may be more effective.
Third, the court addressed whether it had the power to order the removal of management corporation council members. The applicant sought orders removing Mdm Cheong and Mr Tanu as council members for alleged breaches of their duties. This raised a jurisdictional and remedial question: whether the High Court, in an originating summons under the strata management regime, can order removal of council members, or whether the statutory scheme provides a different mechanism.
Finally, the court had to deal with substantive compliance and property-related issues. The applicant sought orders securing compliance with statutory requirements under the BMSMA, restraining the installation of kitchen exhaust systems on common property, restraining engagement of particular solicitors, and obtaining declarations about wet-ink signatures on official documents. In OS 809, the applicant also sought orders restricting alterations relating to Unit 53 and, crucially, orders for reinstatement of parts of Unit 53 that were allegedly altered without authority.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court approached the dispute as both a governance and compliance problem. It began by setting out the historical background in detail, emphasising that the litigation was not an isolated disagreement but the latest stage in a prolonged pattern of acrimony. This contextual framing mattered because strata management disputes often turn on whether the parties acted within the statutory scheme and whether procedural safeguards were followed. The court’s narrative of the 2020 AGM and the dysfunctional 2021 council helped explain why later motions and council actions were contested so intensely.
On the declaratory relief and legality of proposed resolutions, the court analysed the parties’ submissions on whether the motions were properly brought and whether they complied with the statutory requirements. The court also considered the practical effect of declarations. Where a proposed resolution is likely to be implemented and where compliance issues are central, declaratory relief may be insufficient on its own. Accordingly, the court assessed whether it should exercise its discretion to grant declarations and, in parallel, whether restraining orders were warranted to prevent unlawful steps from being taken.
Consistent with this approach, the court granted orders restraining the respondents from raising the proposed resolutions. This indicates that the court was not merely concerned with abstract legality but with preventing concrete governance actions that could affect the management of common property and the rights of subsidiary proprietors. The restraining orders were tied to the statutory framework under the BMSMA and the First Schedule references in the judgment, reflecting the court’s focus on ensuring that strata management decisions are made through lawful processes.
The court also issued orders securing compliance with statutory requirements under the BMSMA. While the extract provided does not reproduce the full reasoning text, the judgment structure shows that the court analysed specific prayers, including the “Third Prayer” and “Fourth Prayer”, and it treated compliance as a distinct category of relief. This suggests the court examined whether the respondents’ actions fell short of statutory duties and whether the applicant was entitled to orders compelling compliance rather than only declarations.
In relation to property management, the court addressed the applicant’s attempt to restrain the installation of kitchen exhaust systems on the development’s common property. The analysis likely required the court to determine whether the proposed installation would amount to works on common property and whether the respondents had the authority to proceed without meeting the statutory conditions. The court’s willingness to restrain such installation indicates that it found sufficient basis to conclude that the proposed action was not properly authorised.
The court further dealt with the applicant’s request to restrain the respondents from engaging “Legal Solutions LLC” as solicitors for MCST 508. This raised issues about the authority of the council to appoint solicitors and whether the appointment process complied with statutory requirements and the management corporation’s governance structure. The court’s analysis, as reflected in the judgment outline, indicates it considered whether the appointment was lawful and whether restraining relief was appropriate.
On the wet-ink signature issue, the court considered a declaration for Mdm Cheong and Mr Tanu to use wet-ink signatures on MCST 508’s official documents. This reflects a procedural and evidential concern: official strata management documents must be executed in a manner consistent with statutory and regulatory requirements. The court’s analysis would have involved determining whether the respondents’ signature practices were inconsistent with the applicable legal framework and whether the applicant was entitled to a declaration compelling a specific form of execution.
The most significant remedial jurisdictional point concerned the removal of council members. The judgment outline explicitly states that the court considered its powers to make removal orders and concluded that it did not have the power to order the removal of the management corporation’s council members. This is a critical legal takeaway for practitioners: even where breaches of duty are alleged, the court may be constrained by the statutory remedial architecture. The court therefore distinguished between (i) declarations as to breaches and (ii) the availability of removal orders as a remedy.
Finally, the court made orders relating to the reinstatement of portions of Unit 53. The outline indicates two reinstatement-related orders: one for reinstatement of the rear windows of Unit 53 and another for removing the front wall and reinstating the façade. These orders suggest the court found that the alterations were unauthorised and that the appropriate remedy was restoration to the lawful configuration. The court’s “summary of findings” and the detailed analysis for each reinstatement order indicate that it assessed the evidence of alterations, their impact on common property or structural elements, and the legal requirements for authorisation.
What Was the Outcome?
The court granted multiple forms of relief across the originating summonses. It issued declarations and, importantly, restraining orders preventing the respondents from raising or proceeding with certain proposed resolutions. It also ordered steps to secure compliance with statutory requirements under the BMSMA, reflecting the court’s emphasis on lawful strata governance rather than purely retrospective declarations.
In addition, the court addressed the applicant’s request for removal of council members by holding that it did not have the power to order the removal of management corporation council members. However, the court still made declarations concerning alleged breaches of duties and granted substantive property-related relief by ordering reinstatement of parts of Unit 53, including the rear windows and the front wall/façade, where the court found alterations to be unauthorised.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for strata practitioners because it demonstrates the High Court’s willingness to intervene in strata governance disputes through restraining and compliance orders, particularly where proposed resolutions and council actions may be unlawful or procedurally defective. The judgment underscores that strata management is not merely a matter of internal disagreement; it is governed by statutory processes that must be followed, and the court will prevent unlawful steps from being taken.
Equally important is the court’s clarification of remedial limits. By holding that it did not have the power to order removal of management corporation council members, the judgment draws a boundary around what relief can be sought in originating summons proceedings. Practitioners should therefore carefully consider the statutory mechanisms available for challenging council membership and alleged breaches, rather than assuming that the court can grant any remedy that appears equitable.
Finally, the reinstatement orders provide practical guidance on how the court treats unauthorised alterations in strata developments. Where alterations affect structural or common-property-related elements, the court may order restoration rather than leaving the matter to be resolved through damages or later approvals. This reinforces the need for subsidiary proprietors and councils to obtain proper authorisation before undertaking works that may affect common areas or the building’s external façade.
Legislation Referenced
- Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA) — First Schedule
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act — First Schedule
- Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969 — First Schedule
Cases Cited
- [2020] SGDC 295
- [2023] SGHC 51
Source Documents
This article analyses [2023] SGHC 51 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.