When a large chunk of concrete detaches from a third-storey condominium balcony and plummets 20 metres into a unit below, it stops being a mere maintenance headache and becomes an urgent structural nightmare. For the residents of Foresque Residences, that terrifying reality struck on Feb 15, 2025, when a cementitious patch gave way at Block 105. Now, the condominium’s management corporation (MCST) has taken aggressive legal action, launching a multi-party lawsuit in the High Court against the developer and four other construction entities to demand accountability and fund critical repairs.
Uncovering Missing Concrete and Hollow Balcony Edges
Following the alarming incident at Block 105, the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) inspected the site on the same day. In response, the MCST appointed professional engineer Chan Chee Choon of Castello Consultant to investigate the root cause of the failure and determine whether similar structural risks lurked elsewhere in the 496-unit, five-block development.
Chan’s findings revealed profound deviations from original architectural specifications. Inspection of the affected Block 105 balcony indicated that a 70mm section of concrete was missing, with the resulting void backfilled with ordinary cement mortar. According to court filings, this unauthorized deviation created a vulnerable seam prone to separating from the main concrete slab. Subsequent hammer-tapping tests across the building revealed an even more widespread issue: roughly 60 per cent of balcony slab edges on Block 105 produced hollow sounds, pointing directly to poor bonding and potential detachment risks across 88 separate balconies. Inspections of the remaining four blocks, however, did not uncover identical conditions.
A High-Stakes Legal Battle Lines Drawn in the High Court
Represented by Lim Tat from Aequitas Law, the MCST argues that these structural anomalies present an intolerable safety hazard. The lawsuit names five distinct entities involved in the 99-year leasehold project on Petir Road, which received its temporary occupation permit in June 2014. The defendants include developer Wincheer Investment, architect Arc Studio Architecture + Urbanism, structural engineer KTP Consultants, professional engineer GLT Engineers, and subcontractor Credence Engineering.
Predictably, every single defendant has disputed liability and filed separate defences in the High Court. Developer Wincheer Investment, represented by Vanessa Ku of Rajah & Tann Singapore, asserted that it did not physically carry out the construction work. Instead, the developer argued that it fully discharged its legal duty of care by engaging competent and award-winning independent professionals to handle the design and execution of the project.
Meanwhile, the remaining defendants have pointed fingers at one another’s contractual scope. The architecture firm maintained that its design drawings explicitly called for a full reinforced concrete balcony slab, adding that it was never appointed to supervise actual structural works. The structural engineer challenged the validity of the findings labeling the balconies defective, while the railing engineer insisted its design remained structurally sound and fully code-compliant. The subcontractor defended its workmanship by stating that both the architect and the engineers had duly checked its output during construction.
The Regulatory Stance and Broader Safety Implications
A BCA spokesman stated that “as the matter is before the courts, we are unable to comment further” regarding the specifics of the ongoing litigation.
What are your thoughts on how accountability should be shared between developers and independent contractors when latent structural defects emerge years down the line? Let us know in the comments below.
