Freesia Woods condo management ordered to compensate couple over termite infestation 

SINGAPORE – Freesia Woods’ management corporation strata title (MCST) has been ordered to compensate a couple after a court found that its failure to prevent termite infestation in the common property had led to damage in their home.

The court awarded Glenford Tan Ming Loon and his wife Vivien Loo Hwee-Wen $10,978 for repair costs and ordered the MCST to pay over $42,000 in legal costs and disbursements incurred in the lawsuit.

The ruling, which was 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.

In December 2023, the couple discovered termites in their fifth-floor unit at the condominium in Sunset Way. The termites had caused damage to their wooden cabinets.

The couple claimed 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 couple, represented by lawyers Daniel Chen and Drashy Trivedi from Lee & Lee LLP, argued that subterranean termites had nested in the development’s property and travelled through soil before reaching their unit and damaging their wooden cabinets.

Their expert witness, entomologist Teh Jo Lynn, found extensive subterranean termite activity across the estate’s common property. An entomologist is a scientist who studies insects and related arthropods like spiders and centipedes.

She testified that the termites originated from the ground and that there must have been termites nesting in the common property soil.

Teh also found mud tubes in the owners’ unit. Such tubes are associated with subterranean termites and are used by them to travel from the soil. She said the insects could emerge in any unit along a vertical stack, bypassing lower floors without being detected by residents.

The MCST did not dispute that termites were found in the couple’s home, but its lawyer, Siew Jowen of Eden Law Corporation, argued that the insects might not have been subterranean termites.

Siew said an unauthorised kitchen sink installed on the roof terrace had created damp conditions that made the unit more susceptible to termites.

The MCST’s expert witness Chaudhry Muhammad, who runs Lucky Pest Control – contracted to conduct pest-control work at the estate – acknowledged that subterranean termites build mud tubes unlike damp wood termites.

He also admitted that the mud tubes in the couple’s property might have been left by subterranean termites, as the mud trail is their known method of travel.

In the judgment, Deputy Principal District Judge Chiah Kok Khun rejected the MCST’s arguments.

He dismissed its allegation that the owners had carried out illegal works, finding no evidence that their roof-terrace installations breached any law or regulation.

The district judge noted that there is no reported case authority in Singapore on the duty of an MCST to maintain common property in specific reference to termite prevention.

However, he said 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.

He also noted that while the MCST’s maintenance duty does not create strict liability, it does matter whether it acted reasonably in maintaining common property.

“I therefore find that the defendant has a duty to take reasonable steps to keep the common property soil free from subterranean termites,” said the district judge.

In the judgment, he repeatedly said that the owners’ evidence was not challenged or rebutted by the MCST.

It also failed to produce evidence rebutting Teh’s finding that subterranean termites were present in the estate’s soil.

In her testimony, Teh said 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 elements 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 also unchallenged.

Lucky Pest Control 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 district judge rejected the evidence of Chaudhry as the expert witness of the MCST.

He 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 on the stand that he did not have the relevant scientific or specialised expertise. He did not submit or write an expert report, and acknowledged that his affidavit containing his purported expert opinion had been drafted by the MCST’s lawyer, Siew.

The district judge described this as “highly unsatisfactory”, rejected Chaudhry’s evidence as expert evidence, and treated him only as a factual witness with knowledge of pest control at the estate.