Our Partner, Kok Yee Keong, was recently quoted in the The Straits Times’s article: https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/housing/geylang-condo-owners-management-at-odds-over-foreign-worker-housing-ban
Yee Keong shared that the starting point is that “Condos are self-governed and by-laws are passed democratically”, and thus “a by-law is valid even if it was passed only by a minority of owners in the development, as long as they represent 75 per cent of the share value of those attending the general meeting”.
In terms of the requirements for passing a by-law, he shared that “All the procedural steps in passing it must also be met. These include a 21-day notice of the general meeting given to owners, and waiting 30 minutes before proceeding with the general meeting if the quorum is not reached”, and that “under the Building (Strata Management) Act, a notice is considered validly served if it is sent to the address registered with the MCST”.
In terms of potentially challenging the by-law, Yee Keong also shared that “If owners wish to challenge a by-law, they can request a motion to be included in the agenda of the next annual general meeting to amend or revoke the by-law. This will then be put to a vote... If owners do not wish to wait until the next annual general meeting, they can request an extraordinary general meeting if they collectively hold at least 20 per cent of share value or 25 per cent of total owners… They could also go to the Strata Titles Boards with their case”.
Beyond the above media quotes, our Partner shares further thoughts below, which may be useful for subsidiary proprietors and MCSTs to consider in future similar cases.
In the particular case examined in the above article, it was reported that the MCST had banned certain groups of foreign workers from living in the development. There may be at least 3 potential issues with such a by-law.
First, in principle, a by-law that restricts who may lease a unit in the development may run afoul with Section 32(9) of the BSMA which prohibits the passing of any by-law that “prohibit or restrict the devolution of a lot or a transfer, lease, mortgage or other dealing of a lot”.
Second, subsidiary proprietors may challenge the by-law by applying to the Strata Titles Boards, which will then have regard to the interest of all owners in the use and enjoyment of their lots or the common property, including whether the by-law is discriminatory or oppressive. Restricting who may lease a unit may raise genuine question on whether the balancing exercise in the particular circumstances of that case was correctly carried out.
Third, it was reported in the article that subsidiary proprietors were given a deadline to “make the necessary amendments to existing tenancy agreements if they do not comply with the new by-laws”. Subsidiary proprietors who had entered into a lease agreement prior to notice of such a by-law being proposed for consideration may possibly argue estoppel – that the MCST had previously allowed certain groups of persons to lease units, and in reliance of such a position, the subsidiary proprietors had to their detriment already committed to legally binding arrangements with such persons, and therefore it is inequitable to allow the new by-law to apply retrospectively to these prior agreements.
Ultimately, whether a by-law is enforceable or liable to be struck down depends on the specific circumstances of each case. If you are experiencing a similar issue, please consider seeking legal advice.
Our MCST practice group has extensive experience in strata-titled development matters and will be able to assist you. For more information, see https://www.harryelias.com/practice-area/real-estate/mcst-advisory/
Disclaimer: The information provided above is for general reference purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. You should seek independent legal advice tailored to your specific circumstances.