THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION STRATA TITLE PLAN NO. 4099 v KTP CONSULTANTS PTE LTD

Q: Which legislation does [2024] SGHC(A) 32 consider?

The judgment refers to BC Act to take all reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure that the building works were designed in accordance with the BC Act, Building Control Act, and Limitation Act (Cap 163). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2024] SGHC(A) 32 High Court (Appellate Division) 9 October 2024 AD/CA 26/2024 33 min read

11 cases cited (5 SG, 6 foreign) Cited by 1 case

Outcome

Appeal allowed

We allow the appeal and set aside the striking out of KTP as a party.

Source: [2024] SGHC(A) 32, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 9 October 2024. Read directly from the judgment.

Key facts

Court	High Court (Appellate Division)
Decided	9 October 2024
Judges	Philip Jeyaretnam, See Kee Oon
Charges / claim	Civil Procedure, Building and Construction Law
Outcome	Appeal allowed
Counsel	Breakpoint LLC, Prolegis LLC, Chan Michael Karfai, Charlene Wee Swee Ting, Chia Hsiung Wen Daniel, Ker Yanguang (Ke Yanguang), Kishan Pillay s/o Rajagopal Pillay, Low Hui Xuan Carissa, Poon Guokun Nicholas, Tan Yi Liang

Source: [2024] SGHC(A) 32, High Court (Appellate Division), decided 9 October 2024 — eLitigation. Updated 25 June 2026.

Catchwords

Civil Procedure — Limitation Building and Construction Law — Architects, Engineers and Surveyors — Statutory obligations

Practice Areas

Civil Procedure Building and Construction Law

Judges (2)

Philip Jeyaretnam Delivered See Kee Oon Coram

Counsel (10)

Breakpoint LLC Firm Prolegis LLC Firm Chan Michael Karfai Counsel Appellant Charlene Wee Swee Ting Counsel Respondent Chia Hsiung Wen Daniel Counsel Respondent Ker Yanguang (Ke Yanguang) Counsel Respondent Kishan Pillay s/o Rajagopal Pillay Counsel Appellant Low Hui Xuan Carissa Counsel Respondent Poon Guokun Nicholas Counsel Appellant Tan Yi Liang Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

KTP Consultants Pte Ltd Respondent The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4099 Appellant

Case Significance

The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4099 v KTP Consultants Pte Ltd [2024] SGHC(A) 32 was decided by the Appellate Division of the High Court in Civil Appeal No 26 of 2024, with Philip Jeyaretnam J delivering the judgment of the court alongside See Kee Oon JAD, heard on 16 September 2024 and reserved to 9 October 2024. The appeal arose from HC/S 143/2022, in which the appellant management corporation (the MCST) sought to hold the respondent KTP Consultants Pte Ltd and three other defendants liable for allegedly defective cladding installed at parts of a residential development.

KTP maintained that the MCST's claims against it were time-barred under s 24A(3) of the Limitation Act 1959 (2020 Rev Ed). KTP's striking-out application failed at first instance but was allowed on appeal by the Judge below, whose grounds of decision appear in Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4099 v TPS Construction Pte Ltd and others [2024] SGHC 149. The matter engaged the statutory obligations of architects, engineers and surveyors and the Building Control Act. The appellant was represented by Breakpoint LLC, including Chan Michael Karfai, Kishan Pillay s/o Rajagopal Pillay and Poon Guokun Nicholas; the respondent was represented by Prolegis LLC, including Charlene Wee Swee Ting, Chia Hsiung Wen Daniel and Tan Yi Liang.

[2024] SGHC(A) 32 explained

THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION STRATA TITLE PLAN NO. 4099 v KTP CONSULTANTS PTE LTD ([2024] SGHC(A) 32) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (Appellate Division) on 9 October 2024. It is categorised under Civil Procedure and Building and Construction Law. Within this corpus it has since been cited by 1 other reported Singapore judgment, a measure of how often later decisions have referred to it. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2024] SGHC(A) 32 about?

THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION STRATA TITLE PLAN NO. 4099 v KTP CONSULTANTS PTE LTD ([2024] SGHC(A) 32) is a High Court (Appellate Division) decision from 2024. Its published catchwords are “Civil Procedure — Limitation” and “Building and Construction Law — Architects, Engineers and Surveyors — Statutory obligations”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2024] SGHC(A) 32 consider?

The judgment refers to BC Act to take all reasonable steps and exercise due diligence to ensure that the building works were designed in accordance with the BC Act, Building Control Act, and Limitation Act (Cap 163). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2024] SGHC(A) 32 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 149. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

How influential is [2024] SGHC(A) 32?

Within this corpus, [2024] SGHC(A) 32 has been cited by 1 later reported Singapore judgment. That count reflects references from other decisions held in this corpus only and is a conservative lower bound on how often the case has actually been cited.

What was the limitation issue in Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4099 v KTP Consultants Pte Ltd ([2024] SGHC(A) 32)?

In [2024] SGHC(A) 32, KTP Consultants Pte Ltd argued that the MCST's claims over allegedly defective cladding were time-barred under s 24A(3) of the Limitation Act 1959. The Appellate Division of the High Court heard the MCST's appeal against the Judge's decision striking out those claims.

Which court and judges decided The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 4099 v KTP Consultants Pte Ltd ([2024] SGHC(A) 32)?

The case was decided by the Appellate Division of the High Court in Civil Appeal No 26 of 2024. Philip Jeyaretnam J delivered the judgment of the court, sitting with See Kee Oon JAD. It was heard on 16 September 2024 and judgment was reserved to 9 October 2024.