MCST sues developer, four others over alleged defects

Chan alleged that the deviation from the design created a section vulnerable to separating from the main concrete.

To check whether similar structural risks existed elsewhere in the condo development, Chan carried out tests on the underside of the balcony slab edges. Subsequently, he 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 slab edges at Block 105 were apparently found to produce hollow sounds during the hammer-tapping tests. This, Chan alleged, indicated poor bonding and potential separation of the cementitious layer from the main concrete.

In total, 88 balconies in Block 105 were identified by Chan as affected by the defect. Inspections of the other four blocks did not uncover the same condition, the court documents noted.

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 + Urbanism, structural engineer KTP Consultants, professional engineer GLT Engineers and subcontractor Credence Engineering.

Developer says it did not carry out construction

Wincheer, represented by Vanessa Ku of Rajah & Tann Singapore, 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. 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 pointed out that the MCST’s claims are legally time-barred and the six-year limitation period would have expired in 2021.

Other defendants deny responsibility

The project architect, Arc Studio Architecture + Urbanism, said its drawings provided for a full reinforced concrete balcony slab, and it never authorised the alleged deviation.

Represented by Anparasan Kamachi from Whitefern, the architect said it was not appointed as the structural engineer or qualified person for structural works, nor was it appointed to undertake the site supervision of the structural works. It also did not carry out the casting of the balcony slabs.

The architect also claimed to have exercised reasonable supervision, but it was not required to be constantly on site or inspect every part of the works. It added that it could not reasonably be expected to detect concealed or unreported deviations from the approved design.

KTP Consultants, responsible for the structural design of the condominium, also denied that the alleged defects compromised the structural integrity of the railing system.

Represented by Amanda Koh from Allyed Gateway, the civil and structural engineering firm challenged the testing methods adopted by the MCST’s expert, calling them unreliable or inappropriate.

Even if the alleged findings are accurate, it pointed to “isolated workmanship or construction execution issues confined to only certain areas in Block 105”, rather than a systemic structural design defect.

GLT Engineers, appointed to design the balcony railings, claimed that its design for the balcony railing system was structurally sound and code-compliant. Represented by Michael Por of Michael Por Law Corporation, GLT said the alleged defects were attributable to the construction of the balcony slab, which is outside its scope.

Credence Engineering, represented by Mark Lee of Mark Lee Chambers Law Corporation, said it was engaged by the main contractor to install balcony railings for certain blocks in the development.

The firm denied all allegations of negligence and claimed that its work was subjected to the checks and approval of multiple other parties, including Arc Studio Architecture and GLT Engineers.

The subcontractor said more than 14 years had passed since it was awarded the subcontract and that it no longer had most of its project records, leaving it unable to ascertain whether its railing works even covered Block 105.

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