Freesia Woods condo management ordered to compensate couple over termite infestation

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.