Freesia Woods MCST Ordered to Compensate Couple Over Termite Damage in Landmark Ruling

The court awarded Glenford Tan Ming Loon and his wife Vivien Loo Hwee-Wen S$10,978 for repair costs after they discovered termites in their fifth-floor unit at the Sunset Way condominium in December 2023. The termites had caused damage to their wooden cabinets.

The couple, represented by lawyers Daniel Chen and Drashy Trivedi from Lee & Lee LLP, argued that subterranean termites had nested in the development’s common property soil and travelled through the building before reaching their unit. Their expert witness, entomologist Teh Jo Lynn, found extensive subterranean termite activity across the estate’s common property.

Teh testified that the termites originated from the ground and that there must have been termites nesting in the common property soil. She also found mud tubes in the couple’s unit, which are associated with subterranean termites and are used by them to travel from the soil. She noted that such termites could emerge in any unit along a vertical stack, bypassing lower floors without being detected by residents.

The ruling, published on Singapore’s litigation portal on July 15, appears to be the first reported case on an MCST’s duty to maintain common property in the context of preventing termite infestation.

Deputy Principal District Judge Chiah Kok Khun found that the MCST had breached its statutory duties under the Building Strata Management Act by failing to ensure that the common property ground soil was free from termites. The district judge noted that while the MCST’s maintenance duty does not create strict liability, it does matter whether it acted reasonably in maintaining common property.

The judge noted that the condo’s MCST knew the estate had a history of subterranean termite infestation but failed to take reasonable preventive steps to guard against recurrence. The owners’ evidence was repeatedly said to be not challenged or rebutted by the MCST.

Teh testified that an effective termite-management programme has three elements: in-ground treatment through post-construction termiticide injection or bait stations, routine inspections using visual checks and a scanner, and targeted treatment to eliminate colonies when termites are found. She described these as the general standard of termite management in Singapore.

After reviewing the pest-control service reports, Teh found that neither preventive soil treatment nor in-ground bait stations had been used. She said there was either no continuous monitoring programme or there were gaps in its implementation. This evidence was unchallenged.

Lucky Pest Control, which was contracted to conduct pest-control work at the estate, conducted visual inspections and killed termites only after they were detected. Its role was described by witnesses as “search and destroy.” It did not treat the soil to prevent termite entry and failed to use scanners during inspections.

The MCST’s expert witness, Chaudhry Muhammad from Eden Law Corporation, acknowledged that subterranean termites build mud tubes unlike damp wood termites. However, the district judge described his evidence as “highly unsatisfactory,” rejected it, and noted that Chaudhry had a commercial relationship with the MCST and was in a conflict of interest because his company had been entrusted with preventing the damage at the centre of the lawsuit. Chaudhry also admitted he did not have the relevant scientific or specialised expertise.