Skip to main content
Best News Website or Mobile Service
WAN-IFRA Digital Media Awards Worldwide 2022
Best News Website or Mobile Service
Digital Media Awards Worldwide 2022
Hamburger Menu
Advertisement
Advertisement

Singapore

Condo management turns to court to get resident to remove unauthorised mezzanine attics, but fails

The architect and his wife said they had bought the unit only after getting verbal confirmation from the developer that they could have the attics built.

Condo management turns to court to get resident to remove unauthorised mezzanine attics, but fails

The couple claimed that they had obtained approval from the developer to build the mezzanine attics. (Photos: Court documents)

SINGAPORE: When the management corporation (MCST) of a condominium discovered that a couple had unauthorised mezzanine attics built in their unit, it took them to court to compel them to remove the structures and to pay damages.

However, the High Court found that the condo management had no cause for action and dismissed the application.

According to a judgment released on Tuesday (Oct 10), Mr William Lau Hui Lay and Ms Midori Aw Jieh Yui bought the unit in The Summit condominium on Upper East Coast Road from the developer in 1989.

The couple visited the show flat in 1989 and were interested in buying a unit, but only if they could install mezzanine attics as they were planning to have children and the unit as is would be too small.

The couple claimed that they received verbal confirmation from the developer's representative to install mezzanine attics in the unit.

They bought the unit and had the attics installed by around April or May 1993, a date disputed by the MCST.

Mr Lau was a registered architect and a member of the MCST's management council from 2008 to 2017. He was also elected chairman of the council from 2009 to 2017.

In 2017, the couple sent an email to the MCST saying that the wall next to their daughter's room had been stained by bird droppings and that this was affecting her health.

The managing agent investigated this and discovered that unauthorised structures - a skylight window and an air-conditioner compressor - had been installed on the roof.

These structures then led to the discovery of the unauthorised mezzanine attics in the unit.

From August 2017 to August 2020, the MCST told the couple that they would have to take down the unauthorised mezzanine attics, unless they could obtain regulatory approval and 90 per cent approval at a general meeting of the MCST.

The couple applied to the Urban Redevelopment Authority in October 2021 for written permission to retain the attics.

In URA's reply, it told the couple that the installation of the attics was in contravention of the Planning Act and they had to pay a penalty of S$2,400.

They were also told to pay a development charge if they wanted to get written planning permission.

The couple paid the penalty of S$2,400 to URA as well as a development charge of S$422,807, based on the additional gross floor area of 63.58m2.

URA granted written permission to the couple to retain the mezzanine attics in September 2022.

The MCST sued the couple, asking the court to order them to remove the mezzanine attics, to pay damages and to bear all costs including legal fees.

THE COUPLE'S CASE

In response, the couple said the MCST had no cause of action. They said they had been in "constant communication" with the developer and its main contractor over the installation of the attics, showing a cross-section plan faxed to them by the contractor in 1990.

The couple also showed copies of photos dated December 1992 depicting the installation of the attics.

They claimed that this installation of mezzanine attics and staircases in their unit was "public knowledge" and reported in the national press, showing an October 1993 Straits Times article showcasing the unit. The article included a photo of the staircases.

The MCST disputed the date of the installation, saying it was possible they had been completed only after the MCST was constituted in November 1993.

However, the judge said the correct reference point would be whether the installation of the attics had been completed only after the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act came into force in April 2005.

Justice Lee Seiu Kin noted that before the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act came into force, there was no law requiring a subsidiary proprietor who wanted to make any floor area-increasing improvements on his lot to obtain authorisation from the management corporation.

This changed with the enactment of the Act, which stated that an owner of a unit in a condominium, for example, could not make any changes in the unit that would increase its floor area unless he was granted authority.

Such authority would be granted by the management corporation if there was a 90 per cent resolution, and this would be according to the terms the management corporation considers appropriate.

Justice Lee accepted the couple's version of events that they had completed the installation of the attics by around April or May 1993. 

The October 1993 Straits Times article also broadly corroborated their personal accounts.

"Even taking the MCST's case at its highest, that is, ... that the installation of the mezzanine attics had not been completed at the time the Straits Times article was published on 30 October 1993, this required the court to, in effect, believe that the construction of the mezzanine attics had been ongoing for a period of more than 11 years, from 1993 to 2005," said Justice Lee.

"Not only was this unlikely, it also accorded with common experience that no family would tolerate the construction of the mezzanine attics to be carried out for such a prolonged period, during which time they were living in the unit."

Justice Lee found that the MCST had no cause of action and dismissed its application.

However, he said Mr Lau ought to have known - as a registered architect and chairman of the MCST's management council for a time - that he was required to obtain planning permission from the URA.

"Yet the defendants knowingly stayed silent and did not seek to obtain the requisite permission. They belatedly applied to the URA for written planning permission in 2021, prompted by the MCST's discovery of the unauthorised mezzanine attics in the unit," he said.

Because of this, he ordered only nominal costs of S$1 to be paid to the couple by the MCST.

Source: CNA/ll(gr)
Advertisement

Also worth reading

Advertisement