SINGAPORE: A condominium’s management corporation ( MCST ) filed a lawsuit to force the owners to remove the structures and pay damages after learning that two residents had constructed mezzanine attics without permission.
Nevertheless, the High Court rejected the program after concluding that condominium management lacked justification.
The Summit condominium on Upper East Coast Road was purchased by Mr. William Lau Hui Lay and Ms. Midori Aw Jieh Yui in 1989, according to a ruling made public on Tuesday( Oct. 10 ).
When the pair saw the present apartment in 1989, they expressed interest in purchasing a home, but only if they could add floor attics because the home would be too small for them to live in.
The couple asserted that the developer’s representative had verbally given them the go-ahead to mount mezzanine attics in the building.
The MCST disputes the day of April or May 1993 when they purchased the device and had the basements installed.
Mr. Lau served on the administration government of the MCST from 2008 to 2017 and was a registered designer. He was even chosen to serve as the council’s president from 2009 to 2017.
The few informed the MCST via email in 2017 that bird droppings had stained the wall next to their mother’s room and were harming her health.
A roof window and an atmosphere condition blower had been installed on the roof, according to the controlling agent’s investigation.
The illegal floor closets in the unit were later discovered as a result of these structures.
The MCST warned the few that they would have to remove the illegal floor basements from August 2017 to August 2020 unless they could win regulatory and 90 % approval at the organization’s general meeting.
In October 2021, the pair requested written approval from the Urban Redevelopment Authority to keep the closets.
The couple was informed in URA’s response that installing the attics violated the Planning Act and would result in a Mho$ 2,400 fine.
If they wanted written planning authority, they were even instructed to give a enhancement fee.
Based on the additional total floor area of 63.58m2, the couple paid URA a$ 2,400 charges and an S$ 422, 807 development fee.
In September 2022, URA gave the couple written permission to keep the floor basements.
The couple was sued by the MCST, who requested that they be ordered to vacate the floor basements, pay damages, and cover all expenses, including legal fees.
THE CASE OF THE COUPLE
The pair retorted that the MCST had no justification for action. They displayed a cross-section plan that the company had faxed to them in 1990 and claimed to have been in” constant connection” with the creator and its main contractor regarding the installation of the attics.
The pair also displayed copies of images from December 1992 showing how the attics were installed.
They asserted that their unit’s addition of floor closets and staircases was” public information” and published a Straits Times article showcasing the structure in October 1993. There was a picture of the stairs in the post.
The MCST disputed the installation’s meeting, speculating that it might have been finished only after the organization was established in November 1993.
The prosecutor argued that the attic setup had only been finished after the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act went into effect in April 2005, which would be the appropriate point of comparison.
Justice Lee Seiu Kin pointed out that there was no rules requiring a company owner to get permission from the management company before the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act went into effect if he wanted to make any floor area-increasing improvements to his lot.
This changed with the passage of the Act, which stated that, for instance, an owner of a condominium unit may not make any modifications to the device that would improve its ground area without first receiving permission.
If there was a 90 % decision, the management company may grant for power, and it would do so in accordance with its deemed suitable terms.
Justice Lee agreed with the child’s account of what had happened, according to which they had finished installing the basements by April or May 1993. & nbsp,
Additionally, their personal records were largely supported by the Straits Times content from October 1993.
Justice Lee stated that even at the strongest argument put forth by the MCST — that the mezzanine attics had not yet been finished when the Straits Times article was published on October 30, 1993— this required the court to, in essence, believe that their construction had been ongoing for more than 11 years, from 1993 to 2005.
In addition to being improbable, it was also common knowledge that no home would permit the floor attics to be built for such a long time while they were residing in the device.
Justice Lee rejected the MCST’s implementation after concluding that it lacked justification.
Nevertheless, he claimed that Mr. Lau should have been aware that preparing permission from the URA was necessary given his status as a registered architect and former president of the MCST’s managing council.
However, the plaintiffs deliberately chose to remain silent and did never make an effort to obtain the necessary consent. After the MCST discovered the unit’s unapproved floor attics, they tardily requested written preparing permission from the URA in 2021, he said.
Because of this, he only requested that the MCST pay the couple’s minimum charges of South$ 1.