Orchard Towers management takes 5 unit owners to court over alleged illegal businesses on their premises

SINGAPORE: A legal tussle has been playing out in court between the management of Orchard Towers, and five proprietors and their occupiers.

The five cases were taken to the High Court amid claims that several by-laws have been breached.

According to court documents filed in February this year, the unit owners were accused of breaching the by-laws, which involved allowing the operation of illegal businesses and providing sexual services under the guise of massage or beauty parlours on their premises.

Other complaints include excessive noise from these locations, failing to be adequately clothed, and behaving in a manner and using language that would negatively affect the building's reputation.

Closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage of alleged touting, physical grabbing of members of the public, and inappropriate dressing were submitted to the courts.

Once known for its raunchy nightlife, Orchard Towers has been trying to revamp its image.

The police announced last year that licences for public entertainment operations there will not be renewed beyond this month (Jul 31). Many such outlets have since relocated. Some have closed for good while others have pivoted to other businesses.

During a recent visit, CNA observed that several new businesses have taken over the vacant premises. A carpet shop and a money changer are among the ones currently in operation.

RESOLVED CASES

Two cases have been resolved while the other three are still ongoing. 

In the cases that were resolved, the landlords and occupiers were given seven days to rectify breach of the by-laws, or face eviction.

Lawyer Steven Lam, who is not one of the lawyers involved in the cases, said that occupiers and proprietors who do not comply with the court order could be found in contempt of court, and could face jail terms or fines.

He added that the court’s ruling in favour of Orchard Towers’ management in the two resolved cases so far could deter others from breaching similar by-laws.

“This will probably play on the minds of other tenants or occupiers who have not reached a settlement. However, just because there was a settlement of previous cases, it doesn’t mean that there will be a binding legal effect on subsequent cases,” said Mr Lam, who is the director of Templars Law.

He said that the law mandates occupiers to take steps to ensure that those using the property – including subtenants, employees of businesses, and visitors such as customers – do not interfere with the “peaceful enjoyment” of the subsidiary proprietor of another unit or other people using the common property.

“The law also says a subsidiary proprietor and occupier shall not use their premises for any illegal or vice activities which may be injurious to the reputation of the subdivided building,” he added.

NEED FOR SUFFICIENT PROOF

There must also be sufficient proof before a court order can be made, said Mr Lam, pointing to the material that was supplied to the court in the five cases.

“The court requires sufficient evidence on what we call 'balance of probability'. So the best evidence will be photographs, videos and tape recordings – that's the bare minimum they need to provide to the court,” he said.

He added that he does not see a long drawn-out process for the disputes as public entertainment operations in Orchard Towers cease.

“If you don't have a licence to operate and you continue to operate, it will ultimately lead to regulatory actions being taken,” he said.