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

SINGAPORE: A shop at Beauty World Centre has been ordered to remove some goods displayed for sale at its shopfront, after a Strata Titles Board ruled that its display racks encroached on the shopping mall’s common property.

In a judgment dated Nov 23, the board granted orders sought by Beauty World’s management against Lucky Departmental Centre. The store, which mostly sells household goods, has operated at the mall beside Beauty World MRT station along Upper Bukit Timah Road for the last four decades.

The three-member board granted orders for the shop’s owners – Lim Meow Loke, Lee Pon Yen and Lim Kan Kan – to remove goods and belongings placed outside an area extending 0.7m from the shopfront along the common corridor, and to stop displaying or storing their goods outside that area.

This is the first time that Beauty World’s management has taken legal action against one of its subsidiary proprietors over long-standing encroachment issues.

When CNA visited Lucky Departmental Centre on Tuesday (Nov 28), some goods were still displayed outside the permitted area.

According to the judgment, since Lucky Departmental Centre relocated to Beauty World in 1983, the shop’s owners have displayed a portion of their goods for sale on moveable racks along the common corridor outside the store.

These goods, which were displayed during the shop’s operating hours from 9.30am to 8pm every day, cumulatively spanned the entire shopfront.

The mall’s complex manager sent a notice to the owners in December 2022, asking for their cooperation to put an end to the shop’s “continued encroachment” on the mall’s common property.

This was part of the mall management’s “renewed efforts” to address the “long-standing issue of encroachment that has plagued” Beauty World since the shop opened, the board said in their judgment.

When the owners did not act on the notice, the complex manager sent a second one on Jan 18 to remind them of their obligations under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act.

A third and final notice was then sent on Feb 2. This time, it imposed a two-week deadline for the owners to comply with the Act.

The owners continued failing to comply, prompting the mall management’s lawyers to issue a letter of demand against them.

The owners contended through their response to the letter that the mall could not compel them to remove their displays.

They argued that other subsidiary proprietors had similarly placed items and fixtures along the common corridor; that their displays complied with fire regulations; and that the displays were not a nuisance or hazard to other shops.

“EXTREMELY HIGH FOOT TRAFFIC”

In their application to the Strata Titles Board, Beauty World’s management said the shop’s displays amounted to an “unreasonable interference” under the Act, as well as an obstruction under a by-law on encroachment.

They argued that the common property encroached upon had “extremely high foot traffic” due to the nature of the shop’s business and its location. They also said the displays, which extended 1.8m and 2.7m onto the mall’s common property on the shop’s sides, presented a “significant impediment” to passers-by.

Their other arguments were that the “substantial vertical height” of the displays was unsightly and also affected the visibility of nearby shops; the displays were a safety hazard due to their proximity to a kindergarten; and the displays completely obstructed the mall management’s access to a telecom riser and common pipes.

On the other hand, Lucky Departmental Centre’s owners said its display of goods was “an established course of conduct” that the mall’s management had been prepared to accept since its incorporation in 1997, such that it was “inequitable” for them to now demand that the owners remove all their goods overnight.

In their rebuttal, they also said there was more than enough space to accommodate the volume of human traffic on their floor, even with the recent opening of Rifle Range Nature Park nearby.

They added that neighbouring units had not complained, and that the goods were only temporarily displayed since they were stored inside the shop every evening.

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.