CHEN Daniel

Daniel Chen is a Partner in the Litigation and Dispute Resolution Department.

Daniel graduated from the National University of Singapore in 2013. After graduating, he joined Lee & Lee, and was admitted to the Singapore bar in August 2014. He was made Partner in January 2020.

Daniel practices both civil and criminal litigation, with an emphasis on disputes involving Management Corporations, as well as Defamation Proceedings.

Some of his notable cases include:

• Acting for a Management Corporation which successfully applied to the Strata Titles Board for an order under Section 114 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 for access into a strata lot for the purpose of determining whether works under Section 30 of the same Act need to be carried out. This is the first reported decision in Singapore in respect of such an order and the only local authority on the factors relevant to the granting of such an order. (The MCST Plan No. 2005 v Tan Wei Loong and another [2024] SGSTB)

• Acting for a Management Corporation which successfully obtain mandatory injunctions against a subsidiary proprietor for the removal of extensive works to a shophouse strata unit, including a mezzanine floor and roof terrace, and reinstatement of major parts of the building such as a roof and gutters. (The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2785 v Ng Jun Quan (Huang Junquan) [2024] SGDC 150)

• Acting for the subsidiary proprietors in successfully resisting an application by a Management Corporation for an order to remove mezzanine attics in a unit. The General Division of the High Court found that the Management Corporation had no cause of action against the subsidiary proprietors as any contravention of the Planning Act 1987 was not actionable by the Management Corporation, and that section 37 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act 2004 did not apply since the mezzanines were installed prior to the act coming into force. (MCST Plan No. 1788 v Lau Hui Lay William and Anor [2023] SGHC 284)

• Acting for a Management Corporation in successfully resisting an application by a subsidiary proprietor to install ziptrack blinds at the balconies of his unit. The District Court held that the ziptrack blinds would be installed on common property and a 90% resolution was required. The Court also found that the exceptions under the law did not allow the subsidiary proprietor to disregard the MCST’s design guidelines. Further acted for the Management Corporation in successfully defending against the subsidiary proprietor’s applications for permission to appeal against the Court’s decision in both the District and High Court. (Soo Hoo Khoon Peng v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 2906 [2023] SGDC 162; [2023] SGHC 355)

• Acting for a Management Corporation in successfully resisting an application by a subsidiary proprietor to switch of an allegedly noisy water pump near her unit. The STB considered the pervasive issue of noise complaints within condominiums and the surprising dearth of regulatory guidance of the same. The STB found no causal link between the alleged noise complaint and the water pump. Furthermore, the MCST had discharged its legal obligation of maintaining the water pump. Hence, the STB was reluctant to micromanage the operational matters of the MCST but noted the impracticability of global standards in an urban landscape like Singapore. The Board also expressed its empathy for the subsidiary proprietor’s concerns. (Liu Xiaoyu v The Subsidiary Management Corporation No. 2 – Strata Title Plan No. 4391 STB 41 of 2023)

• Acting for a Management Corporation in successfully resisting an application by a subsidiary proprietor to invalidate by-laws passed by the Management Corporation to regulate parking in the development. The District Court found that the by-laws were not inconsistent with the Building Maintenance (Strata Management) Regulations 2005, and reasonable. The Court also held that the subsidiary proprietor’s application was an abuse of the judicial process and awarded costs on an indemnity basis in the Management Corporation’s favour. (Manohar K D Nanwani v The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 1884 [2023] SGDC 40)

• Acting for a Management Corporation which successfully applied to Court for a mandatory injunction to restrict subsidiary proprietors’ use of common property in an industrial building. The Court explored the considerations relevant to the granting of a mandatory injunction in that context, as well as the scope of the mandatory injunction to be granted (The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 3564 v Lian Fong Credit Holdings Pte Ltd [2022] SGDC 200).

• Acting for 7 Council Members of a Management Corporation in the successful defence of a defamation claim by the Chairperson of the Council, which was brought in respect of a letter written by their lawyer to the Chairperson. The Court held that there was no publication of the letter to third parties, and that on the facts, the 7 Council Members had succeeded in establishing the defence of justification (Lim Song Leng v Koh Lay Choo [2022] SGDC 70).

• Acting for a subsidiary proprietor which successfully applied to Court to obtain documents obtained by a management corporation while representing it and other subsidiary proprietors in an appeal to the Land Acquisition Appeals Board over compensation awards for the compulsory acquisition of land. The Court dealt with novel issues in the application of Section 47 of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (Cap 30C) (Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 0827 v Aikyu Trading Co (Pte) Ltd [2020] SGHC 217).

• Acting for a management corporation which successfully resisted an application by a subsidiary proprietor to the Strata Titles Board for an order to compel it to replace fixed awnings installed by subsidiary proprietors at their private enclose spaces, with retractable awnings. The Board considered in depth how paragraph 5(3) of the 2nd Schedule of the Building Maintenance (Strata Management) Regulations provided an exception to the usual requirement that the installation of awnings on common property walls requires a 90% exclusive use by-law (Lee Soh Geok v The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 4417 [2020] SGSTB 9).

• Acting for a management corporation which successfully resisted an application by a subsidiary proprietor to the Strata Titles Board for orders that it enforce parking by-laws against other subsidiary proprietors. The Board in this case considered the circumstances under which it would be appropriate to intervene in a management corporation’s enforcement of by-laws (Supersonic Maintenance Services Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No. 3564 [2020] SGSTB 8).

• Acting for a management corporation and subsidiary proprietor, who successfully resisted an application before the Strata Titles Board by another subsidiary proprietor for removal of an awning at a private enclosed space. This case had important implications for the law on the installation of safety devices in strata titled developments (Rosalinah Soh Pei Xi v Hui Mun Wai and Anor [2019] SGSTB 5).

• Acting for a subsidiary proprietor who successfully applied to the Strata Titles Board to compel a management corporation to allow his inspection of audio recordings of proceedings of an annual general meeting. This case clarified the law on a subsidiary proprietor’s rights to inspect documents in the custody or control of management corporations (Timothy Siah Yang Tek v 28^th Management Council of MCST Plan No. 1420 [2018] SGSTB 1).

• Acting for a management corporation which successfully obtained a mandatory injunction from the Strata Titles Board for subsidiary proprietors’ removal of glass curtains installed at a balcony. This case dealt with enclosure of balconies and increase in floor area of a building (MCST Plan No. 4188 v Lim Yeong Seng & Kam Leh Hong Helen [2020] SGSTB 2).

• Acting for a management corporation which successfully resisted an application by subsidiary proprietors to the Strata Titles Board to compel the management corporation to relocate their privately owned air-con condensers from one part of the common property to another. This case discussed the duties of management corporations (Lau Khee Leong & Ding Hongyan v MCST Plan No. 3915 [2020] SGSTB 3).

• Acting for a management corporation which successfully applied to Court to compel a subsidiary proprietor to remove unauthorized alterations to the common property. This case made clear for the first time that such actions could be brought even if the management corporation had yet to commence legal proceedings against other subsidiary proprietors who might similarly be in breach (MCST Plan No. 681 v Tan Yew Huat [2015] SGDC 118, and the appeal therefrom).

• Acting for defendants who successfully resisted defamation proceedings brought in relation to flyers distributed to all subsidiary proprietors of a management corporation, in support of a requisition for an extraordinary general meeting (Simon Lim Beng Wee v Ong Kek Chong and Ors [2019] SGDC 193).

• Acting for a managing agent, and its shareholder-director, who successfully resisted defamation proceedings brought in relation to what the shareholder-director had said at an annual general meeting of a management corporation (Tan Yew Huat v Peh Loo Hock and Anor [2018] SGMC 46).

• Acting as co-counsel for successful parties in various other landmark strata title disputes relating to safety (Sujit Singh Gill v MCST Plan No. 3466 [2015] SGSTB 2, Zou Xiong v MCST Plan No. 2360 [2017] SGSTB 3, Pang Loon Ong and Ors v MCST Plan No. 4288 STB No. 21 of 2019), upgrading of electrical supply to a strata unit (Lee Lay Ting Jane v MCST Plan No. 661 [2017] SGSTB 3), consents for alterations to common property (Soo Kee Investment Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No. 661 [2017] SGSTB 3), and the removal of common property (MCST Plan No. 361 v Yap Choo Moi HC/TA 10/2017).