A Court Just Told Every Condo MCST in Singapore What 'Maintaining Common Property' Actually Means

Glenford Tan Ming Loon and Vivien Loo Hwee-Wen own a unit at the top of Freesia Woods, a low-rise development at 61 Sunset Way. In December 2023, as The Straits Times reported, they discovered termites in their home.

What termites do to a house is not dramatic. There is no collapse, no emergency. There is a wooden cabinet that turns out to be hollow, and then the discovery that the cabinet was holding up a basin, a marble top and a backing — so all of it has to come out and go back in again. A repair that starts as carpentry becomes plumbing and stonework.

They did what most owners would do first: they went to the management. Their case was that the termites had not come from inside their home. They were subterranean termites — a species that nests in the ground — and they had come up through the estate's soil, which is common property, and which the management corporation is responsible for maintaining.

The MCST disagreed. And so a dispute about a bathroom cabinet became, eventually, a reported judgment.

The management corporation did not dispute the termites. Its argument was that they were not subterranean — and that the couple had brought the problem on themselves by installing a kitchen sink on their roof terrace, creating damp conditions.

The couple's expert was an entomologist, Teh Jo Lynn, who found extensive subterranean termite activity across the estate's common property and mud tubes inside the unit. Mud tubes are how subterranean termites travel from soil, which makes them a signature. She also explained something that should worry anyone in a tall block: the insects can emerge in any unit along a vertical stack, bypassing the floors below without being noticed.

The MCST's own expert was Chaudhry Muhammad, who runs Lucky Pest Control — the firm contracted to do the estate's pest-control work. The judge declined to treat him as an expert at all. He had a commercial relationship with the MCST and a conflict of interest; he submitted no expert report; he acknowledged lacking the relevant scientific expertise; and he accepted that the affidavit containing his supposed expert opinion had been drafted by the MCST's own lawyer. Deputy Principal District Judge Chiah Kok Khun called that "highly unsatisfactory", treating him only as a factual witness.

The judge also dismissed the allegation that the owners' roof-terrace works were illegal, finding no evidence of any breach. And one concession from the MCST's own witness did real damage: he accepted that subterranean termites build mud tubes, and that the tubes in the couple's home might well have been theirs.

The finding is narrower than "MCSTs are liable for termites", and the narrowness is the useful part.

The judge noted there was no reported Singapore authority on an MCST's maintenance duty specifically in relation to termite prevention. He then held: "I therefore find that the defendant has a duty to take reasonable steps to keep the common property soil free from subterranean termites."

He was explicit that this does not create strict liability. An MCST is not automatically on the hook the moment an insect appears in someone's cabinet. What matters is whether it acted reasonably in maintaining the common property.

On the facts, it had not. The estate had a known history of subterranean termite infestation, and the MCST failed to take reasonable preventive steps against a recurrence. The court repeatedly observed that the owners' evidence had gone unchallenged and unrebutted.

The couple were awarded $10,978 for repair costs, and the MCST was ordered to pay over $42,000 in legal costs and disbursements — about $42,750.

The most portable part of the judgment is the standard the court accepted, because it gives every MCST and every owner something concrete to check a pest-control contract against.

The entomologist described an effective termite-management programme as having three elements:

1. In-ground treatment — post-construction termiticide injection, or bait stations.
2. Routine inspection — visual checks and scanning equipment.
3. Targeted treatment to eliminate colonies when termites are found.

She described these as the general standard of termite management in Singapore, and that evidence went unchallenged.

What the estate actually had was only the third element. Reviewing the pest-control service reports, she found no preventive soil treatment and no in-ground bait stations, and either no continuous monitoring programme or gaps in it. The contractor conducted visual inspections and killed termites after they were detected — a role the witnesses themselves described as "search and destroy". It did not treat the soil to prevent entry, and did not use scanners during inspections.

That is the gap the judgment turns on. Killing termites when you find them is not the same as taking reasonable steps to prevent them, and an MCST that buys only the first thing may find it has not bought the second.

Ten days later, The Straits Times described a termite problem at The Tre Ver, a three-year-old, 729-unit UOL development in Potong Pasir which received its temporary occupation permit in late 2022. It is the second UOL project known to have one; the 1,074-unit Avenue South Residence in Silat Avenue had reports of a termite issue in 2023. Both obtained their TOP during the pandemic period.

And here the species matters. UOL said both projects were hit by drywood termites — not the subterranean kind at the centre of the court case. Drywood termites live deep inside wooden fittings and feed on dry wood; they do not come up from the soil, and colonies can grow undetected for years until frass — sand-like droppings — appears.

That single biological difference redirects the whole liability question. The Freesia Woods case ran on common-property soil, squarely the MCST's responsibility. Drywood termites inside a built-in wardrobe supplied by the developer point somewhere else entirely.

The reported inspection findings sit with that. Absolute Inspection, whose director Tan Wee Kwang checks properties for defects, found signs of termite or wood-borer infestation in built-in wardrobe or toilet cabinets in fewer than 10 of 61 vacant Tre Ver units it inspected between December 2022 and April 2023 — and in half of the 125 vacant Avenue South Residence units it checked in 2023. The developer provided the wardrobes and vanity cabinets in both projects. Tan noted that vacant new units should be less likely to be infested, since nobody has moved in to introduce anything, and called it "puzzling" that such cases began appearing after the pandemic.

UOL said it has "about 15 affected home owners" at The Tre Ver, and that although the defects liability period has ended it will continue to arrange inspections and work with owners. A former resident, who asked to be identified only as J. Lau, believes at least 50 units have had issues since December 2022, based on complaints in a WhatsApp group for affected owners — a residents' tally, not an audited count. Both UOL and the MCST declined to give figures.

BCA said termite infestation is considered a defect and is one of many factors in CONQUAS, its construction quality assessment system. UOL is rated Band 1 (the best of six), The Tre Ver is a Band 3 project and Avenue South Residence Band 2 — with BCA noting that issues at two specific projects may not on their own affect a developer's overall banding, which reflects six years of portfolio-wide assessment.

It is worth putting these numbers next to the value of the homes they concern, because the ratio explains why disputes like this so rarely reach a judgment.

On our own transaction records, drawn from URA caveats over roughly the last twelve months:

Against a $2.19M median in D21, the $10,978 repair award is roughly half of one percent of a home's value — and the $42,750 in legal costs is close to four times the damages recovered.

That asymmetry is the quiet reason there was no reported Singapore case on this until now. On pure economics almost nobody should sue their MCST over a cabinet: the cost of establishing the principle dwarfs the sum in dispute, and the couple only recovered their costs because they won. Everyone before them, presumably, absorbed the loss.

Which is what makes a first reported judgment valuable well beyond the two parties — the expensive part has now been paid for by someone else.

These are transacted prices in a trailing window, excluding landed. The median price moves with the mix of unit sizes that happened to sell, so the median PSF is the more like-for-like comparison, and a recent window under-lodges so the counts are a floor.

It depends on two questions, in this order.

Where did they come from? Subterranean termites nest in the ground and travel up through soil, leaving mud tubes — and the estate's ground soil is common property, which the MCST has a duty to maintain. Drywood termites live inside timber and fittings and do not come from the soil, which points instead at the furniture, the fit-out or the developer. Establishing which species you have is the first practical step, and it is what expert evidence was needed for in the reported case.

Did the MCST act reasonably? The court was clear this is not strict liability. The relevant test is whether reasonable steps were taken — and the standard accepted in evidence was preventive in-ground treatment or bait stations, routine inspections including scanning, and targeted treatment when termites are found. An MCST whose contractor only kills termites after they appear, with no soil treatment and no monitoring, looks a lot like the one that lost. An estate with a known history of infestation and no preventive programme looks worse still.

If you are asking the question seriously, ask the MCST for the pest-control service reports and the scope of the contract. That documentary record is what the case turned on.

The instinct is to fix it immediately. The reported case suggests slowing down for a few days is worth a great deal.

Identify what you have. Get a qualified pest-control or entomological assessment stating the species in writing — subterranean versus drywood is the single fact that determines who you should be talking to. Mud tubes suggest subterranean; frass inside cabinetry suggests drywood.

Document before you demolish. Photograph the damage, the tubes or frass and the location, with dates, and keep every pest-control report and piece of correspondence. Once the damaged cabinet is ripped out, the evidence is in a skip.

Notify the MCST in writing, promptly — and ask them, also in writing, what preventive treatment and monitoring is in place for the common property, and when it was last done.

If the building is new, check your defects position. Cabinetry supplied by the developer may fall within the defects liability period, a different and usually faster route than any argument with the MCST. Check the dates early, because that window closes.

Keep every receipt. In the reported case the damages ran well beyond the cabinet itself, because removing it meant reinstalling the basin, marble top and backing attached to it.

The case details — the parties, the December 2023 discovery, the MCST's defence, the expert evidence on both sides, the judge's findings and quoted holding, the three-element termite-management standard, the "search and destroy" characterisation, the $10,978 award and roughly $42,750 in costs, and the 15 July 2026 publication of the judgment — come from The Straits Times' and CNA's reports, linked below. We have read the reporting, not the judgment itself, and have attributed accordingly.

The Tre Ver and Avenue South Residence details — unit counts, TOP timing, the drywood species, UOL's statement about roughly 15 affected home owners, the Absolute Inspection findings, the residents' WhatsApp tally and BCA's comments on CONQUAS and the Band ratings — come from The Straits Times' 27 July report. Where figures are residents' estimates rather than verified counts, we have said so.

The district price figures are ours: transacted private-sale prices from URA caveats over roughly the last twelve months, run through the same function our directory pages use, as at 29 July 2026. These are transacted prices, not asking prices, in a trailing window; they exclude landed property; the median price reflects the mix of unit sizes that sold, so the median PSF is the more like-for-like comparison; and a recent window under-lodges, so the sales counts are a floor.

One limit worth stating plainly: we have no data on termite incidence, pest-control standards or MCST maintenance quality across Singapore's condominiums. Nobody publishes it. Nothing here is a claim about how widespread this problem is.

The news:

• The Straits Times — Freesia Woods condo management ordered to compensate couple over termite infestation, 16 July 2026.
• CNA — Couple sues condominium management over termite damage, wins in what appears to be first such case, 18 July 2026.
• Mothership — Couple sues Clementi condo management after termites damaged house, gets awarded S$53,000, 18 July 2026.
• The Straits Times — The Tre Ver condo grapples with termite trouble; UOL helping residents in affected units, 27 July 2026.

The data:

• PropKaki transacted private-sale prices by postal district, from URA caveats, trailing ~12 months, as at 29 July 2026.

This is commentary by the PropKaki Editorial Desk on reporting by The Straits Times, CNA and Mothership. The account of the case and of the situation at The Tre Ver belongs to those newsrooms; the analysis, the framing and the opinions are ours.

It is emphatically not legal advice. We have not read the judgment; we have read reports of it. A district court decision turns on its own facts and evidence, and the same insects on different facts could produce a different result. Anyone considering a claim against an MCST, a developer or anyone else should take proper legal advice on their own circumstances.

Nothing here alleges wrongdoing by any party beyond what the reporting describes. At The Tre Ver, no liability has been found and no ruling made; the developer has said it continues to assist affected owners after the end of the defects liability period.

Published 29 July 2026.