Court rejects condo MC's bid to clear shoe cabinet from corridor

The management corporation at The Infiniti in West Coast Park claims that the cabinet reduced the width of the common corridor available for fire escape.

Published 7 hours ago

K.C. Vijayan
Senior Law Correspondent


A shoe cabinet outside an apartment's front door is arguably a common sight in condominiums.

But for the management corporation (MC) at The Infiniti in West Coast Park, it was a big no-no for one unit, with the owners taken to court for refusing to remove the cabinet.

However, District Judge Lim Wen Juin ruled that it was a case of yes-and-no, making it a test case about placing personal items in a common corridor and the extent to which an MC can intervene.

The judge said: Yes, placing the shoe cabinet along the common corridor broke the condo's by-law. But he added: The MC is not getting the court order that will require the unit's owner to remove the cabinet.

Such an order would be a "disproportionate" response to the by-law breach, because the cabinet does not obstruct movement in the corridor nor intrude on any person's rights but to the "most negligible degree", he said.

"There is no real harm caused by the presence of the cabinet and thus no real benefit to be had by anyone in its removal," he added.

In decision grounds issued earlier this month, the judge also took issue with the MC's conduct, which he found "unreasonable and objectionable".

The cabinet, placed beside the apartment's front door, is 1.06m long and 0.36m wide.

The MC argued, among other things, that it breached two provisions of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act as well as various by-laws prescribed in the Building Maintenance (Strata Management) Regulations 2005.

It also breached additional by-laws set by the MC, it added.

But its submissions and evidence failed to convince the judge.

One of the MC's claims is the cabinet reduced the width of the common corridor available for fire escape. Evidence failed to bear it out.

The defendants' lawyer, Mr Raymond Lye, pointed to the Singapore Civil Defence Force's practice code for fire safety precautions.

It prescribed a minimum width of 1.2m for corridors in high-rise buildings.

As the 0.36m-wide cabinet reduced the corridor width to no less than 1.44m, it satisfied the code.

"I can think of no reason in principle why there should be different standards for public and private high-rise housing," the judge said.

The case eventually turned on one issue - a broadly phrased additional by-law that prohibits storing, leaving or discarding personal belongings in common areas and staircases, regardless of the size, nature and whether the object obstructs people's path.

It is so widely couched that it could be a breach to leave even small items such as a flower pot or a pair of shoes in a common corridor, the judge noted.

In not giving the MC the court order it sought, the judge referenced a 2005 High Court decision and said the issue entails balancing the benefits and burdens to produce a fair result.

He chided the MC for not being even-handed in enforcing its by-laws, as photographs showed many other owners had left personal belongings in the common corridor outside their units, thus breaching the same by-law.

The MC said it targeted the shoe cabinet as it was the newest and largest of the offending cabinets and that it would go after the rest after it succeeded in this case.

The judge said: "Even if the cabinet is the 'newest', I do not see how that is a reason to single it out - if anything, I would have thought the 'newest' object presents the least prolonged breach and hence the least compelling case for enforcement to be taken."

It was "not at all obvious" the cabinet was the largest object, he added.

The judge also had doubts the MC intended to take any steps against the other owners.

"It seems to me that in making this application, the MC is attempting to secure the cabinet's removal without having to risk the ire of the other offending subsidiary proprietors by asserting an intention to enforce the additional by-law against them too, and I do not think it is right and proper for the MC to do that," he said, adding its conduct made it unjust to grant the order.

The MC is appealing against the decision, said its lawyer Leo Cheng Suan. Meanwhile, the shoe cabinet remains outside the unit.

The flat's co-owner, Mr Charles Tay, 61, told The Straits Times they contested the case with "reluctance", as they appreciated the MC members' efforts and work as volunteers in looking after the estate.