Condo MCST Sues Developer and Four Others Over Alleged Balcony Defects After Concrete Fell 20 Metres

Foresque Residences is a 99-year leasehold development in Petir Road which received its temporary occupation permit in June 2014. It comprises five blocks and 496 units.

On 15 February 2025, a cementitious patch detached from the underside of a balcony on the third floor at Block 105 and landed in a first-floor unit below, according to court documents. The Building and Construction Authority was alerted to an incident involving fallen concrete at Block 105 Petir Road that day. Asked about it, a BCA spokesman said that as the matter is before the courts, the authority is unable to comment further.

According to court documents, BCA inspected the site on the same day and subsequently issued a Notice to Maintain to the management corporation, requiring immediate safety measures and permanent rectification works.

The management corporation later appointed professional engineer Chan Chee Choon of Castello Consultant to investigate the cause and determine whether similar structural risks exist elsewhere in the development.

After inspecting Block 105, Chan found that part of the balcony slab had not been built as intended. He said a 70mm section of concrete was missing and the gap was later filled with cement mortar. Chan alleged that the deviation from the design created a section vulnerable to separating from the main concrete.

To check whether similar risks existed elsewhere, Chan carried out tests on the underside of the balcony slab edges and reported finding no steel reinforcement at several sites. Hammer-tapping tests found hollow sections that could indicate poor bonding. About 60 per cent of the balcony slabs at Block 105 were found to produce hollow sounds when the tests were carried out, which Chan alleged indicated poor bonding and potential separation of the cementitious layer from the main concrete.

The MCST, represented by Lim Tat from Aequitas Law, alleged that the defects at Block 105 pose a serious safety risk. It is seeking damages from developer Wincheer Investment, architect Arc Studio Architecture and Urbanism, structural engineer KTP Consultants, professional engineer GLT Engineers and subcontractor Credence Engineering.

Wincheer Investment denied being responsible for the design, supply, installation or construction of the development. It asserted that it had discharged its duty of care by hiring competent and award-winning independent contractors in the construction of the development.

In response to the MCST’s expert findings, Wincheer argued that the 70mm cementitious patch along the edge of the railing is not part of the structural support for the railing, and that any detachment of the patch was a maintenance issue rather than a structural defect.

Court documents noted that when the developer conducted a site inspection in March and April 2026, it did not observe any visible popping or cracking in balcony tiles, and that there was no sign of structural distress.

Wincheer also argued that the MCST’s claims are legally time-barred, saying the six-year limitation period would have expired in 2021.

The architect. Arc Studio Architecture and Urbanism said its drawings provided for a full reinforced concrete balcony slab and it never authorised the alleged deviation. It said it was not appointed as the structural engineer or qualified person for structural works, was not appointed to undertake site supervision of the structural works, and did not carry out the casting of the balcony slabs. It claimed to have exercised reasonable supervision but said it was not required to be constantly on site or inspect every part of the works, and could not reasonably be expected to detect concealed or unreported deviations from the approved design.

The structural engineer. KTP Consultants, responsible for the structural design of the condominium, denied that the alleged defects compromised the structural integrity of the railing system. The firm challenged the testing methods adopted by the MCST’s expert, calling them unreliable or inappropriate. It added that even if the alleged findings are accurate, they point to isolated workmanship or construction execution issues confined to only certain areas in Block 105, rather than a systemic structural design defect.

The railing engineer. GLT Engineers, appointed to design the balcony railings, said its design for the balcony railing system was structurally sound and code-compliant, and that the alleged defects were attributable to the construction of the balcony slab, which is outside its scope.

The subcontractor. Credence Engineering said it was engaged by the main contractor to install balcony railings for certain blocks. It denied all allegations of negligence and said its work was subjected to the checks and approval of multiple other parties. It also said more than 14 years had passed since it was awarded the subcontract and it no longer had most of its project records, leaving it unable to ascertain whether its railing works even covered Block 105.

Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority records show that the main contractor, Tiong Aik Construction, is undergoing creditors’ voluntary winding-up.

All five defendants have separately filed their defences at the High Court and denied liability. The allegations described above are claims made in court filings and have not been proven. The matter remains before the courts.