Nonsense parking case, but is the judge mistaken as well too?
https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/c...park-label
"Mr Nanwani argued that the parking by-law is inconsistent with regulations which state that a management corporation shall not unreasonably withhold its approval to the parking or leaving of a vehicle on the common property.
But Judge Ng found that the MC, which was constituted in March 1995, was not bound by the regulations, which came into effect in April 2005."
=========================
This part, I cannot agree with the judge.
How can the MC not be bound by new government regulations?
It's like saying that if new law was made for the worst drug trafficking offences to attract death penalty where it were just 20 years imprisonment prior, then those born before the law was enhanced would not be affected by it, how ridiculous would this be, since the action the law seeks to prevent is both urgent and necessary for the entire society to function properly from parliament's viewpoint.
So is the judge here saying that MC can ignore 'regulations which state that a management corporation shall not unreasonably withhold its approval to the parking or leaving of a vehicle on the common property.'?
Or is this some legal technicality about MC vs MCST, such that the issue is with the careless or unfocused Straits Times reporter who has thrown shade at the judge as result of significant omissions, and thus ought to apologise and clarify the report.
In any case, the rule that MC 'shall not unreasonably withhold its approval to the parking or leaving of a vehicle on the common property' seems so plainly sensible that parliament shouldn't even have needed to articulate it, unless to convey the messages that the judiciary is so capricious and irresponsible , they so often fail to apply reason in their judgements that unreasonable acts of defendants are routinely condoned. Shouldn't parliament give some respect to the judicial heirachy to establish case law, and trust judges to independently maintain the standard logic and reason and set the good example and standard for petioners to court to follow, rather than be handheld and told like children to do so?
Can someone with legal knowledge, clarify why the administration of law is in such a mess now, especially if there is indeed a difference between MC and MCST, since they are mostly the same function, except for perhaps a very small and minority difference in constitution only.
this is the written judgment for this case
https://www.lawnet.sg/lawnet/web/lawnet/...aseportlet&p_p_lifecycle=1&p_p_state=normal&p_p_mode=view&p_p_col_id=column-1&p_p_col_pos=2&p_p_col_count=3&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_action=openContentPage&_freeresources_WAR_lawnet3baseportlet_docId=/Judgment/29428-SSP.xml
Whether the Respondent is bound by para 2(2) of the Second Schedule to the BMSMR
15 The Respondent was constituted on 7 March 1995,[note: 26] which was before the BMSMA came into effect on 1 April 2005. Thus, says the Respondent, pursuant to para 14(2)(a) of the Fourth Schedule to the BMSMA (which s 32(2) of the BMSMA is expressly subject to (see [12] above)), the prescribed by-laws in force in Fort Gardens are those set out in the First Schedule to the repealed Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Rev Ed) (“LTSA”), and not those set out in the Second Schedule to the BMSMR.[note: 27] Paragraph 14(2)(a) of the Fourth Schedule to the BMSMA provides as follows:
(2) Subject to sub-paragraph (3), the by-laws in force for any parcel comprised in a strata title plan in respect of which a management corporation continued by the operation of paragraph 10 is constituted are the following by-laws in force immediately before 1 April 2005:
(a) the by-laws set out in the First Schedule to the Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap. 158, 1999 Revised Edition) repealed by this Act; and
…
[emphasis added]
16 For completeness, and as the Respondent highlights, the First Schedule to the LTSA does not include a by-law equivalent to para 2(2) of the Second Schedule to the BMSMR.[note: 28]
17 The Applicant, in response, accepts that para 2(2) of the Second Schedule to the BMSMR does not form part of the Respondent’s by-laws. In this sense, the Respondent is not directly bound by para 2(2) of the Second Schedule to the BMSMR. However, the Applicant argues that the Respondent is still indirectly bound by para 2(2) of the Second Schedule to the BMSMR. Specifically, the argument is that by virtue of s 32(2) of the BMSMA, any additional by-law made by the Respondent post-BMSMA (and this includes the Parking By-Law, which was made on 17 October 2011[note: 29]) cannot be inconsistent with the by-laws in the Second Schedule to the BMSMR, including para 2(2) thereof. In support of this, the Applicant points to how the reference to “prescribed” by-laws in s 32(2) of the BMSMA is also found in the BMSMR. In contrast, the by-laws in the First Schedule to the LTSA are simply referred to as “by-laws”.
18 I deal first with the last-mentioned point. In relation to by-laws, the term “prescribed” in the BMSMA seems to simply refer to the by-laws prescribed by statute, in contradistinction to the additional by-laws made by a management corporation. In my view, therefore, the reference to “prescribed” by-laws in s 32(2) of the BMSMA is neither here nor there. The real question is whether, for management corporations constituted before 1 April 2005, the reference to “any such prescribed by-law” in s 32(2) of the BMSMA is a reference to the by-laws in the Second Schedule to the BMSMR (such that the Respondent is bound (albeit only indirectly) by para 2(2) of the Second Schedule to the BMSMR) or the by-laws in the First Schedule to the LTSA (such that the Respondent is not).
19 In my judgment, for management corporations constituted before 1 April 2005, the reference to “any such prescribed by-law” in s 32(2) of the BMSMA is a reference to the by-laws in the First Schedule to the LTSA. As the Respondent submits, the opposing interpretation would lead to an illogical result: the Respondent would be (directly) bound by the by-laws in the First Schedule to the LTSA, but then cannot make by-laws that are inconsistent with a second set of by-laws, namely, those in the Second Schedule to the BMSMR. This makes no sense. Neither party has submitted on the purpose of the second half of s 32(2) of the BMSMA, but I think it is simply to ensure that any additional by-laws made by a management corporation do not undermine the by-laws prescribed by statute. This being the case, the reference point must be the by-laws prescribed by statute which are applicable to the particular management corporation in question. And for management corporations constituted before 1 April 2005, these would be the by-laws in the First Schedule to the LTSA.
20 In the circumstances, I find that the Respondent is not bound by para 2(2) of the Second Schedule to the BMSMR, whether directly or indirectly.
abnn think he big F.
see the open leg policy to let in more abnn will resulted in more such case.
Remember the case of "I pay $xxx million for this condo unit not hdb" parking saga ?
After reading the judgment, I find that the 2005 set of by-laws by statue is not very useful if not applicable Singapore-wide and only applicable to the newer MCs of most probably the newer condos. Just my layman's POV.
if no need resident IC can apply car park label, all the 2nd hand car dealers will park their cars inside the condo.
He didn't want to update his IC to the condo address probably because he wanted to continue to enjoy some Government subsidies.
The Judge dismissed the case not because MC can ignore the MCST rulings but more because the applicant was using his old address which MC could not prove from his application that he is a resident of the Condominium.
Not sure why the case had to be brought to the Court as the applicant had subsequently updated the address on his identity card. He could reapply for the parking label without any problem. Mayb the applicant yaya abit when his application was refused and he stupidly challenge MC to the Court. The Judge described this case as an abuse of the judicial process.
https://tnp.straitstimes.com/news/singap...park-label
U got kuailan resident and a kuailan MC to make a pair . wasting pple's time.
(14-03-2023, 04:16 PM)Clyde Wrote: [ -> ]He didn't want to update his IC to the condo address probably because he wanted to continue to enjoy some Government subsidies.
the police should charge him for failure to update his NRIC address as required by Sg law.
read point 32 and 33 of the judgement
scumbag didnt even print the correct log book
(14-03-2023, 04:28 PM)teaserteam Wrote: [ -> ]The Judge dismissed the case not because MC can ignore the MCST rulings but more because the applicant was using his old address which MC could not prove from his application that he is a resident of the Condominium.
Not sure why the case had to be brought to the Court as the applicant had subsequently updated the address on his identity card. He could reapply for the parking label without any problem. Mayb the applicant yaya abit when his application was refused and he stupidly challenge MC to the Court. The Judge described this case as an abuse of the judicial process.
https://tnp.straitstimes.com/news/singap...park-label
U got kuailan resident and a kuailan MC to make a pair . wasting pple's time.
Stop reading at " Manohar K D Nanwani ".
This CB kia chao ah neh just want to stir shit to vex at the MC only thinking that he is the King of Taj Mahal.
Should just send him back to his motherland.
TS you posted in HWZ too?
why dont you read the replies here
the judgemebt has been posted and the asnwer lies there
seems like no one in HWZ also bother to read the judgemebt
this forum really dead
and also more active replies in HWz, ALL ARE GUESSING as to why this why that
The condo MC is made up of the condo's SPs. Usually retired old aunties or tai tais like to sit on the MC to bully the MA into doing their bidding. They sure have the time and the means to deal with these kuai lan residents. Cos they also equally kuai lan. As a non resident SP, I used to have a lot of problems with them too, as most of them had more than one car and wanted to confiscate the non resident SPs carpark lots for their own use. So even if you are an owner, you can only park in the guest lots as you don't stay there.
They even wanted to prevent us from using all the condo facilities. MCs are usually very self serving.