Why Basketball Netting Led to a Lawsuit at Costa Del Sol

With over 3,700 condominiums in Singapore, we sometimes see disputes regarding estate management escalate to the point where the courts have to be involved.

Usually, these disagreements arise when residents disagree with the management corporation strata title (MCST) over renovations, condo maintenance spending, safety measures, or how meetings are conducted.

In a recently concluded legal case brought before District Judge Sim Mei Ling, the disagreement began over basketball hoops, specifically installing protective netting behind the hoops. This eventually escalated into a legal case involving the chairman of the MCST of Costa Del Sol, a leasehold condominium on Bayshore Road, and a condo resident.

How did basketball netting lead to a lawsuit?

Like many disputes involving this type of strata developments, it started with a straightforward question: should protective netting be installed behind two basketball hoops within the condominium?

According to a summary of the judgement, published on Aug 4, between 2019 and 2023, Alayne Wong Ee Lian – the condo resident involved – had ongoing disagreements with the MCST and the managing agent of Costa Del Sol over different aspects of the estate’s management.

While several issues were raised, the dispute that ultimately resulted in this turning into a defamation lawsuit centred on three issues:

1. The installation of protective netting behind two basketball hoops
2. A mediation session convened to resolve the disagreement
3. The MCSTs decision to hold the 2023 Annual General Meeting (AGM) virtually.

Now, the basketball hoops had been part of the estate for many years, even though they were not part of the developer’s original plans. According to the chairman of the MCST, Riccardo Boido, who also filed the lawsuit, there were genuine safety concerns.

Children attempting to score a basket could easily overshoot the hoop, sending basketballs over the condominium’s perimeter fence and onto the adjacent Bayshore Road. This could potentially be a hazard for both residents and passing motorists.

To prevent accidents from occurring, the MCST proposed installing protective netting behind the basketball hoops. This proposal was put to residents at the 2022 AGM as a special resolution, with an estimated cost of $5,800 (excluding GST). Although nearly 70% of the votes cast supported the proposal, it did not achieve the required 75% majority needed to pass this type of special resolution.

As a result, the motion was defeated.

Usually that would have ended the matter. Instead, the dispute took an unexpected turn.

A few months later, the MCST decided to install the protective netting anyway, using recycled materials and in-house manpower so that no additional cost would be incurred by the MCST. While the Council viewed this as a practical solution to an ongoing safety concern, Wong argued that the outcome of the AGM vote had been disregarded.

Between March 2023 and October 2023, she allegedly sent six defamatory emails – but later denied that the emails were defamatory of Boido or the MCST. Arguing her case in court, she also relied on the defences of justification, fair comment and qualified privilege.

That disagreement over a pair of basketball hoops and some protective netting would soon escalate into allegations of unlawful conduct, complaints to five government ministers over six emails, culminating in a defamation lawsuit before the High Court.

Ultimately, District Judge Sim Mei Ling found that the six emails went beyond simply criticising the MCST’s decisions, as they contained allegations that Boido had acted unlawfully.

However, Wong did not have to pay any damages since the court found that her emails were protected by qualified privilege. And according to the summary of the judgement, there was insufficient evidence that she had acted with malice when she sent those emails.

What can an MCST do without the subsidiary proprietors (SPs) or owners’ approval?

Under the Building (Strata Management) Act’s Strata Management Guide, the MCST is responsible for the overall estate management, and holding regular meetings for SPs to decide on issues affecting the estate. 

Their duties include:

• Managing the management and sinking funds
• Obtaining insurance for the estate’s buildings and against the liability, and expenses for errors and omissions made by any council member
• Making by-laws and issuing reminders to comply with them
• Carrying out repairs and maintenance of the common property in a development
• Appointing a managing agent (MA) to assist in the day-to-day running of the estate
• Keeping up-to-date with and following all relevant laws
• Appointing an auditor to audit the books and accounts of the MCST
• Managing contracts with service providers

A condo also has a management council, which is responsible for day-to-day operational matters. Their role extends to:

• Acting as the managing body for the MCST
• Make daily decisions that enable the MC to operate smoothly
• Run and preside over the annual general meeting

In some instances, the council is still subject to restrictions placed upon it by the SPs in a general meeting. For instance, the SPs in a general meeting can decide that for certain matters, only they (and not the council) can determine such matters.

In this case, while an MCST has broad powers to manage and maintain common property, its authority to erect new structures is limited.

So, does it matter if something like protective netting costs the MCST nothing to erect?

Even if some people might feel the installation was harmless as the cost was negligible, that alone may not make it legal.

One of the main questions the court needed to decide was whether the MCST had the authority to install protective netting behind the basketball hoops after residents had voted against the proposal.

In this case, the proposed netting had failed to obtain the required majority at the 2022 AGM. Although the Council installed the netting using recycled materials at no cost, the court held that this did not remove the statutory requirement for a special resolution.

In short, the Council was not legally entitled to install the netting, and Wong’s allegation that the Chairman had acted contrary to the BMSMA was justified.

What happens when a proposal like that gets majority support but still fails?

In this case at Costa Del Sol, 70% of the owners who voted in support of the proposal were in fact the majority, and a sizeable one. But it still fell just short of the requisite 75%.

It makes one wonder if the voting really makes sense, where a significant percentage of residents have voted their approval and yet didn’t see the plan come to fruition.

So, can safety concerns allow the MCST to act anyway?

The rationale for the net was to ensure the safety of residents and motorists. But this brings up to the next question: are there exceptions to the rule where MCST is allowed to carry out certain actions in the interests of public safety?

Perhaps that could be a point of conversation as the Building (Strata Management) Act (BSMA) undergoes a review with a key area to clarify the responsibilities of strata-titled stakeholders. 

So, what should owners be careful about when they prepare to lodge a complaint?

I reckon that before things turn into a messy lawsuit, it may be prudent for condo owners to raise their concerns internally by highlighting – and keeping a record – of specific issues to the managing agent or management council. Alternatively, they can also requisition a motion at the AGM.