Beauty World Centre shop ordered to remove display racks encroaching on common space at storefront

Beauty World Centre shop ordered to remove display racks encroaching on common space at storefront

BOARD’S DECISION

The Strata Titles Board ruled in favour of Beauty World’s management, noting how evidence clearly showed how far the shop’s displays had encroached onto the mall’s common property.

The displays had also prevented the management from placing a SafeEntry gantry – a necessity during the COVID-19 pandemic – wherever it wanted to along the common corridor.

The board further noted that the mall’s management had sent multiple written notices to the owners from as early as April 1999, which went against the owners’ argument that no action was taken against them in their 40 years of operations at Beauty World.

The board then gave several reasons for their findings that the shop owners had acted unreasonably.

These included the fact that the mall’s management always had to seek the owners’ permission to clear a path to the telecom riser. The owners also refused to allow management to carry out certain works if this required access during operating hours to any part of the common property that had been encroached upon.

One of the owners, Mr Lim Meow Loke, gave verbal threats that he had a knife in his shop when he was asked to store his goods in the shop to facilitate the implementation of the SafeEntry gantry.

The board also found no evidence to support the shop owners’ contention that they had been singled out amid other instances of encroachment within Beauty World.

Other subsidiary proprietors ended up complying through dialogue or lease agreements for the use of common property, or reminder letters similar to those sent to Lucky Departmental Centre.

For example, the mall’s management confiscated the property of Giant supermarket when it failed to comply with its final reminder. The management also recently took enforcement action against another unit for encroachment, the board noted.

While the displays did not pose safety hazard problems in the past, it was impossible to rule out the possibility of such hazards arising in the future, since the displays could obstruct fire escape routes, the board added.