1 
Judgment:

2 GROUNDS OF JUDGMENT

3 The Plaintiff is the management corporation of the subdivided building comprised in
Strata Title Plan No. 1601 and known as Bukit Timah Shopping Centre < 'BTSC' > . It
was constituted upon the registration of the said Strata Title Plan on 8 March 1991
pursuant to s 33 of the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158) < 'the Strata Act' > .

4 

5 

6 

7 5 On 28 June 1983 as required by s 7 of the Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance
and Management) Act (Cap 30) < 'BCPA' > , the Defendant as the developer applied to
the Commissioner of Buildings for approval to collect maintenance charges in respect of
the podium at the rate of $0.65 per square foot.

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 10 In the meantime, some of the unsold units, by way of distribution of assets between
Loong Yoke Phin and Wing Hong How, were transferred to Long Win Investment Pte Ltd <
'Long Win' > , the family holding company of the former, some to High Power Investment
Pte Ltd < 'High Power' > , the family holding company of the latter. Some were
transferred to Dolcen Agencies Pte Ltd < 'Dolcen' > which is equally owned by Loong
Yoke Phin and Wing Hong How. For the same purpose and functions for which Lee Yeok Chai
was appointed to oversee the affairs of the Defendant, Lim Lam Choon was appointed by
Loong Yoke Phin and Wing Hong How for Dolcen.

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 (i) part of basements 1 and 2 < after the transfer to Long Win > had been
converted to additional staircases for better access to the basements;

18 

19 

20 15 At the end of the hearing, I found for the Plaintiff as follows:

21 (i) judgment in the sum of $956,970.32;

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 (a) to maintain the common property of the development in a state of good repair;

29 

30 

31 

32 

33 (f) to pay rent and rates (if any);

34 (g) to pay any fee incurred for the auditing of the maintenance fund;

35 

36 ... ...

37 

38 

39 

40 10(1) A developer shall pay into the maintenance fund -

41 

42 

43 (c) all income derived from the common property of the development.

44 

45 (3) ... ...

46 

47 (5) ... ...

48 (6) ... ...

49 

50 Upon the establishment of the management corporation, the proprietor shall -

51 

52 

53 

54 

55 

56 

57 

58 

59 

60 

61 

62 

63 

64 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 A: Yes. ... ...

70 Q: Any legal proceedings taken to recover the arrears?

71 A: No.

72 Q: Did you ask why no action was taken against Long Win and Dolcen?

73 

74 Q: Who advised you of that?

75 A: Miss Loong Sweet Ying and also Mr Lee Yeok Chai.

76 Under cross-examination, Steven Loh said: Q: Did you recommend legal proceedings?

77 A: No.

78 Q: Why not?

79 A: I was looking at the likely practical results of such action.

80 Q: What do you mean?

81 A: Long Win itself had financial problems and they might not be able to pay.

82 Q: Financial problem was only a cash flow problem?

83 A: Yes, I took a practical view because Miss Loong was wearing two hats.

84 

85 A: No.

86 

87 

88 A: Yes.

89 Q: What did he say?

90 A: He said the amount has to be collected.

91 Q: What did you do then?

92 A: I told him as special accountant he could do as he deemed necessary.

93 Q: Did you tell him to go ahead and collect the arrears?

94 A: No, I did not.

95 Q: Why not?

96 A: As special accountant I left it to him.

97 Q: Both Loong and Wing were often away in Malaysia?

98 A: Yes.

99 Q: With whom would Lee Yeok Chai speak to in their absence?

100 

101 

102 A: Yes.

103 

104 A: Yes.

105 Q: You reported to your father?

106 A: Yes.

107 Q: What did he instruct you to do?

108 A: He left it to Lee Yeok Chai to decide.

109 Q: Your father did not instruct you to take action?

110 A: Decision has to come from both Mr Loong and Mr Wing.

111 

112 A: No.

113 

114 Q: Long Win Holdings is Mr Loong Yoke Phin's (your father) holding company?

115 A: Yes.

116 Q: See P1, you were and are one of the three directors?

117 A: Yes.

118 Q: Mr Loong Yoke Phin is also the managing director?

119 A: Yes.

120 Q: Who is Loong Shin?

121 A: My brother.

122 Q: The shareholders are your family members?

123 A: Yes.

124 Q: You were and still are the secretary of Long Win?

125 A: Yes.

126 ... ...

127 A: Long Win did not reply but took the stand that the charges were excessive and did
not pay. Excessive because (1) it covered the area converted to two additional staircases;
(2) there was no provision of services to basement II at all; (3) rate of $0.65 was in
excess of the approved rate of $0.60 < 'the three reasons' > . See DB188 189 and 183
to 185.

128 Q: Long Win took the view that because of these three reasons, it needed not pay?

129 A: Long Win would pay only after the disputes were resolved.

130 Q: What efforts were made by L & W and Long Win to resolve these disputes?

131 A: There were many meetings between Long Win and L & W.

132 Q: Were minutes recorded of these meetings?

133 A: No.

134 Q: Who were present at these meetings?

135 A: Lee Yeok Chai, Steven Loh, Wing Hong How and myself.

136 Q: Who represented whom?

137 A: I represented Long Win, the others represented L & W Holdings.

138 

139 28 On the second reason, see the evidence of Steven Loh:

140 

141 

142 Q: See DB187, did you write that to Building Administration Unit (BAU) this letter?

143 

144 Q: Did you reply to Long Win?

145 

146 Q: What did you say to Miss Loong?

147 A: The gist would be I disagreed.

148 Q: What was Miss Loong's reaction?

149 A: We could not convince each other.

150 ... ...

151 

152 A: Yes.

153 Q: You were doing so as the managing agents on behalf of the defendants?

154 A: Yes.

155 Q: Your conversation with Miss Loong was in her capacity as representative of Long Win?

156 

157 Q: So you spoke for the developers?

158 A: Yes.

159 

160 

161 

162 

163 Q: When was this advice given?

164 A: May be in 1985.

165 Q: Put to you that this answer is totally untrue.

166 A: I disagree.

167 Q: See the rate in PB1/50 is $6.45 < per > sq metre if you divide it by 10.764
will give $0.59999, why did you have to seek Mr Loh's advice?

168 A: The amount of $0.65 was decided by Steven Loh.

169 

170 Q: See PB1/49, this was received by L & W on 13.8.84. See note 'BYL cc to Mrs
Leong' < Loong Sweet Ying > . So you got a copy receipt of this approved rate, did
you instruct the company to collect according to the approved rate?

171 A: Yes.

172 Q: Who was instructed?

173 A: A Miss Lee, the company accountant.

174 Q: Did you tell Miss Lee to use the rate of $6.45 psm or $0.65 psf?

175 A: We continued to bill according to $0.65 psf.

176 

177 Dated this 13th day of February 1997.

178 GOH JOON SENG

179 JUDGE