Search results

The purpose of this paper is to provide an analysis of the profile and differing perspectives of strata owners (subsidiary proprietors) involved in collective sales in Singapore. It aims to examine their position within Singapore's legal framework, and consider the repercussions of the power‐play between them.

The paper utilises legislation and case‐law to reveal the problematic aspects of the collective sale process through majority rule. Similar legislation exists in Hong Kong, South Korea and Taipei. Data on collective sales from real estate information systems and property analysts are also utilised.

The findings reveal the dichotomy of concerns between different groups of subsidiary proprietors, namely the owner‐occupiers and property investors. This causes delay and acrimony which characterise many collective sale exercises. This is fuelled by a lack of differentiation in the voting rights of the different groups of subsidiary proprietors. However, Parliament and the Courts have been dynamic and sensitive in seeking to strike a balance between the legitimate concerns of both groups.

The findings assist both groups of subsidiary proprietors to be more alert about the pitfalls and profits in a collective sale. Policy makers in other jurisdictions can learn from Singapore's experience of the collectives sale phenomenon as an avenue for urban renewal. It provides insights to the multiple issues which arise when majority rule can dictate the trajectory of collective sales.

This study aims to enlighten strata property owners about the importance of choosing the appropriate vehicle for the management of the common property in their strata development.

The research methodology employed for this inquiry is a case study of two residential strata‐titled properties. The two were selected on the basis that, although they share certain similar characteristics including age, tenure and locational attributes, each employs different systems of property management. Data were gathered mainly through interviews with the Property Managers and Chairs of the Management Council. Interviews were also carried out with professionals in the real estate industry specializing in property and facilities management.

The study reveals the various factors of which Management Corporations should be mindful when deciding what form of property management vehicle to use. Careful consideration of these factors will result in a decision that not only is cost‐effective, but also provides greater efficiency in the management and maintenance of the strata titled development.

Careful consideration of the factors revealed in the findings can result in a decision by the Management Corporation, which is cost‐effective. Evaluation of the factors will also result in greater efficiency in the management and maintenance of common property in the strata titled development.

This is an up‐to‐date comparison of two property management systems available to strata developments, in the context of the Singapore Land Titles (Strata) Act, which is based on New South Wales' legislation. The information is useful for strata owners and Management Councils in other jurisdictions in that it provides pointers on the choice of a property management system.

The paper seeks to consider the basis on which a management corporation can represent original and subsequent purchasers of units in strata developments in a representative action against developers; the significance of unit owners' share values when courts award compensation; vicarious liability; and developers' use of the “independent contractor” defence in relation to its liability for defects in common property.

The paper analyses cases from several common law jurisdictions, with a focus on Singapore Court of Appeal decisions.

The paper highlights the problems posed as a result of the doctrine of privity in relation to management corporations' claims against developers for defects in common property; the implications of unit holders' share values; and the circumstances in which developers can avail themselves of the independent contractor defence.

The paper will be instructive to developers, contractors, management corporations and both original and subsequent purchasers of units in strata developments.

The paper brings to focus the importance of due consideration by the management corporation before it commences a representative action on behalf of the subsidiary proprietors; and also highlights procedures and/or legislation that need to be implemented, failing which there may be financial implications that can render a “successful” litigation against the developer a pyrrhic victory.

From 1967, responsibility for the maintenance and management of common property in strata developments in Singapore was borne by single‐tier management corporations. However from 2005, through the concepts of multi‐tier management corporations and limited common property, new legislation made sweeping changes to the way in which common property can be managed. This paper aims to discuss the present situation

First, the problems inherent in the existing system of single‐tier management corporations for strata property management until 2005 are examined. This provides a backdrop for a discussion of the solutions presented by new legislation in the form of “two/multi‐tier” management corporations.

The study reveals that while the multi‐tier system could alleviate some of the problems existing under the single‐tier management corporation system, other problems could arise; these include increased operational costs, finding sufficient volunteers for the multi‐tier management corporations, and increased potential for conflict.

There are practical implications for various parties including subsidiary proprietors, management corporations, developers and managing agents. Developers and property owners now have certain flexibilities that were not available under the single‐tier system. Evaluation of the potential problems can result in greater efficiency and cost savings.

While this paper is of general interest to all types of strata developments, it is of particular relevance to mixed‐use developments, which may benefit from multi‐tier management corporations. The paper draws on the experiences of other jurisdictions, which have implemented similar systems and introduced measures to minimize some potential problems.

In the light of the property relativist theory, the purpose of this paper is to review the impact of radical amendments to strata legislation in Singapore in 1999 which, together with changes to the planning framework, stimulated private‐sector led redevelopment in Singapore. This was achieved through the introduction of majority rule (rather than unanimity) in collective sales (CS) of strata developments. The paper also addresses the issue of how a balance can be achieved between the property rights of majority and minority strata owners.

The paper uses case‐studies, planning provisions, and data on property transactions to analyse the effectiveness of the measures taken to address Singapore's land‐scarcity problem. Legal terms and their significance are addressed in a manner that will also be comprehensible to a non‐legally trained readership.

The cases demonstrate attempts by the authorities to clarify, and to provide a better balance to, the position of those whose property rights had been sacrificed at the altar of redevelopment and urban rejuvenation in Singapore. Nevertheless, there still remain numerous pockets of resistance to CS. These still need to be addressed to reassure the minority in the context of the property relativist theory.

The continued groundswell of protests against collective sale means that there are further issues that need to be addressed to mitigate the plight of the minority. The response of parliament has been reactive, but it remains to be seen whether the minority's concerns have been adequately addressed.

The analysis of the cases, whose decisions turned on the authorities' interpretation of the controversial legislation, is instructive. These can provide valuable pointers for policy makers in other jurisdictions contemplating urban rejuvenation. The twin issues that are dealt with relate to how private‐sector redevelopment can be incentivised through planning measures, without riding roughshod over individuals' private property rights.

The paper aims to consider how collective sales may be achieved more effectively and speedily in the Singaporean context.

Through an examination of Singaporean legislation, cases, market conditions and the residential price index, a range of factors has been identified as affecting the success rate of collective sales.

The paper shows that in the face of radical legislation that aimed to facilitate collective sales, there were various other factors that impeded the success rate of collective sales. Some of these factors were within the control of parties, whereas some were not.

The paper points to the flashpoints in the collective sale process which property consultants can be mindful of during negotiations. Suggestions are made for the property consultant to adopt mediation techniques to expedite the process. This will result in time and cost savings for the parties involved.

The paper highlights the interplay of various factors other than legislation to facilitate collective sales. The paper will be of particular value to property consultants involved in negotiating collective sales, and owners of strata titled properties who wish to engage in collective sale of their development.

In the face of Singapore's land scarcity problem, there is an increasing prevalence of strata‐titled developments providing private housing in Singapore. This paper considers the awareness in certain quarters of certain fundamental aspects of this unique form of property ownership. The particular aspect which this paper considers is the understanding and interpretation of the term “common property” among two important groups of people. The first group comprises those who purchase strata title properties – they are referred to as “subsidiary proprietors”. The second group comprises “managing agents” (MAs), who may be delegated this task of professionally managing and maintaining the strata‐titled development. The findings of a survey are that their understanding of this fundamental term is inadequate. Based on these findings, the paper concludes with recommendations for improving the level of professionalism among MAs through licensing and courses for continuing professional development. This will bode well for the overall state of strata‐titled developments which are not only here to stay, but are expected to increase in number in Singapore.

The purpose of this paper is to compare different apartment ownership systems and analyze how to enhance the regular maintenance and repair of owner‐occupied apartment buildings. The dwellings themselves are often in fairly good condition, but the common parts (e.g. walls, roofs, stairwells, and technical installations) are often poorly maintained.

Apartment ownership systems in ten European countries (Austria, England, Finland, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden and Switzerland) are analyzed, along with Canada, China, Russia, and the USA, and some of the main findings from each country are presented. The material studied is primary legal sources together with the relevant literature.

It seems that there are severe obstacles in the legislation of many countries. Some of these obstacles are: the non‐existence of a proper decision‐making body (e.g. homeowners' association); the wide use of a qualified majority, or even the use of consensus, which makes it difficult to reach decisions; serious difficulties in getting loan financing for major repairs because of a lack of collateral and means to enforce the collection of payments; a lack of transparency and insufficient auditing procedures. Overall, it can be concluded that there are great variations between different countries. At the same time, many legal solutions are similar across certain groups of countries.

Weaknesses in the legislation is one of the main reasons for the continuous deterioration of an important part of the housing stock in many countries. If this deterioration continues, the quality of life of millions of occupants will gradually worsen.

The paper provides a theoretical well‐based analysis, combined with concrete suggestions.

The purpose of this paper is to outline and examine the growing corpus of housing rights and assess their relevance and applicability to complex contemporary housing systems across the world.

The paper sets out the principal instruments and commentaries on housing rights developed by the United Nations, regional and other bodies. It assesses their relevance in the context of contemporary analysis of housing systems, organized and directed by networks of legal and other professionals within particular domains.

Housing rights instruments are accepted by all States across the world at the level of international law, national constitutions and laws. The findings suggest that there are significant gaps in the international law conception and framework of housing rights, and indeed, human rights generally, which create major obstacles for the effective implementation of these rights. There is a preoccupation with one element of housing systems, that of subsidized or social housing. However, effective housing rights implementation requires application at meso‐, micro‐ and macro‐levels of modern, dynamic housing systems as a whole. Epistemic communities of professionals develop and shape housing law and policy within these domains. The housing rights paradigm must be further fashioned for effective translation into contemporary housing systems.

The development of housing rights precedents, both within international and national law, is leading to a wide and diffuse corpus of legislation and case law. More research is needed on specific examples of effective coupling between housing rights and elements of housing systems.

This paper offers housing policy makers and lawyers an avenue into the extensive jurisprudence and writings on housing rights, which will inevitably become part of the lexicon of housing law across the world. It also highlights the limitations of housing rights implementation, but offers some new perspectives on more effective application of these rights.