1 
Judgment:

2 Coram: Lai Siu Chiu JC

3 GROUNDS OF DECISION

4 The background

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 a. (i) in so far as liability is concerned, I accepted the submission of counsel for

the plaintiffs that as the defendants were the developers and were also the subsidiary

proprietors of the units, they were liable for the outstanding maintenance charges

(Singapura Developments (Pte) Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 446 <

1992 > 1 SLR 525); (ii) there was no question of the plaintiffs having elected to

pursue their claim against Dolcen and Long Win merely because of a computer

print-out/extract (see exh TPS2 of Teo's first affidavit) which identified that the units

were those of Dolcen and Long Win as the defendants remained the units' subsidiary

proprietors, the plaintiffs in their letter to the defendants on the payment had accepted

the sum of $82,069.77 from Long Win on a without prejudice basis and had expressly

reserved their rights against the defendants (see exh TPS3 of Teo's first affidavit).

There was no other evidence to show that the plaintiffs had indeed made the election and

that the defendants had acted to their detriment in reliance on such election; (iii)it was

irrelevant to the issue of the defendants' liability that Dolcen and or Long Win may or

will claim against the plaintiffs for excess payments they had made; b. apart from the

bare statement in Loong's affidavit no evidence was produced to substantiate the

defendants' contention that the wrong rate had been used by the plaintiffs in their

computation of maintenance charges. I should also point out that the letter from the

Commissioner of Buildings to the defendants dated 10 August 1984 (see exh L 2 of Loong's

affidavit) stated that the approved monthly maintenance charge with effect from 1

September 1984 was at the rate of $6.45 psm and not calculated on a psf basis; c. it did

not lie in the mouth of the defendants to feign ignorance of the sum claimed and the

period that it related to as the defendants were collecting the maintenance charges

themselves prior to the formation of and taking over, by the plaintiffs on 7 April 1993.

The defendants were also obliged under s 34(b) of the Act to maintain proper accounts for

the management corporation commencing from the date of registration of the strata title

plan and ending on a date not earlier than 3 months before the first annual general

meeting; the accounts of the defendants exhibited in a related suit (Suit No 1560 of 1993)

were certified by public accountants who did not query or qualify the accounts. Hence the

defendants should have the records to verify their allegations as well as the plaintiffs'

claim. It is also noteworthy that at the first AGM Loong as the defendants' representative

did not query let alone object to the claim amount when it was raised under item 2.0 of

the agenda relating to the audited accounts which had been prepared by or for the

defendants; d. as for the contention that the wrong area had been used for the calculation

of maintenance charges it was pointed out by counsel for the plaintiffs that the strata

title plan was registered on 8 March 1991 and it was the plan not the strata certificates

of title that shows the share value for each individual unit. Therefore if indeed the

wrong area had been used again it was during the time the defendants were in charge. By

virtue of cl 22 of the agreement for sale and purchase for units in the Complex the

defendants as subsidiary proprietor are in any event not entitled to a refund of excess

maintenance payments if any, made. Clause 22 states: the area of the unit ....is only an

estimate. If a difference in area is shown in the Subsidiary Strata Certificate of Title

of the unit or is found on completion of Government Resurvey of the unit there will be no

adjustment in the purchase price and or maintenance fee and service charge herein

provided. A similar clause was interpreted in Collins Corporation (Pte) Ltd v Chong Gay

Theatres Ltd < 1992 > 1 SLR 503 to the effect that it disentitled the subsidiary

proprietor from claiming any excess contributions paid; e. touching on the maintenance

charges for the basement area, it was for the defendants if they were unhappy to take up

the issue of the conversion of the same into common property with the Commissioner of

Buildings but until such time as the issue was resolved, the defendants' liability

remained.

14 

15 Schedule of affidavits filed

16 1. Affidavit of Teo Poh Siang filed on 13.9.93.