Updated 23 July 2026 · Strata dispute case analysis

Condominium roof leaks: when must an MCST repair or replace?

A roof leak does not by itself decide whether an MCST acted unreasonably or whether full replacement is required. The evidence must connect the defect, the water path, the response and the remedy sought.

Book a Free Initial Consultation

Singapore strata disputeRoof seepage claims turn on inspection, evidence and the reasonableness of the response.

Current legal reference

Historical judgment, current Act name

The 2023 judgment and Justin Chan Chambers’ case analysis refer to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, the name in force when the matter was decided. From 1 October 2025, the legislation was renamed the Building (Strata Management) Act.

Scope clarification

What “roof replacement” means here

The reported dispute concerned whether relevant roof components, particularly flashings or roof tiles, required replacement. References below to replacing the roof should be read in that factual context and do not suggest that the Board was asked to order wholesale replacement of every roof component.

No. In Evershine Development Pte Ltd v The MCST Plan No. 2053, STB No. 29 of 2023 (Eunos Park), the Strata Titles Board held that the MCST’s maintenance duty required a reasonable response. The duty did not impose strict liability whenever water entered a unit. The owner still had to prove the source, show why the repairs were unreasonable and support any request for replacement with evidence.

Water seepage from a condominium roof can cause extensive damage to ceilings, walls, flooring, doors and personal property. When the source of the leak appears to be common property, the affected subsidiary proprietor will usually look to the Management Corporation Strata Title, commonly known as the MCST, to investigate and carry out repairs.

However, the existence of a leak does not necessarily mean that the MCST is legally liable or that a condominium owner can insist on complete replacement of the roof.

The decision in Evershine Development Pte Ltd v The MCST Plan No. 2053, STB No. 29 of 2023 (Eunos Park) illustrates the evidence an owner may need to produce and the steps an MCST should take when responding to water seepage complaints.

What happened in the Evershine case?

The applicant owned a two-storey condominium unit situated directly below a common-property pitched roof.

Water had allegedly entered the unit and caused damage to several areas, including the:

ceilings;
walls;
floors;
door frames; and
doors.

The owner commenced proceedings before the Strata Titles Board and sought an order requiring the MCST to engage a contractor immediately, stop the seepage and rectify the affected areas.

The owner maintained that the leaks were continuing and that the MCST's previous attempts at rectification had been ineffective.

The MCST disagreed. It explained that it had engaged a roofing contractor to carry out waterproofing and rectification works. Those works were covered by a five-year warranty, and the contractor had attended to the owner's complaints as they arose.

The central question was therefore not simply whether water had entered the unit. The Board had to determine whether the MCST had acted reasonably in investigating and responding to the problem.

What is an MCST's duty to maintain common property?

Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, an MCST is responsible for properly maintaining common property and keeping it in a state of good and serviceable repair.

Where reasonably necessary, that responsibility may extend to renewing or replacing part of the common property.

However, the MCST's duty is not one of strict liability.

This means that an MCST is not necessarily in breach of its duty every time a common-property roof, pipe, wall or waterproofing membrane develops a defect.

The relevant question is whether the MCST responded reasonably.

This may involve considering whether the MCST:

investigated the complaint promptly;
appointed an appropriate contractor or consultant;
identified the probable source of the leak;
carried out reasonable rectification works;
monitored whether the leak recurred;
responded to subsequent complaints; and
considered replacement where repeated repairs were no longer adequate.

Can an owner insist that the MCST replace the entire roof?

Not necessarily.

The Board explained that there is a distinction between maintaining common property through repairs and renewing or replacing it entirely.

An owner seeking complete replacement must generally show that the relevant part of the common property is in such a poor condition that it can no longer reasonably be maintained through ordinary repairs.

In the Evershine case, the owner argued that roof flashings should be reinstalled or replaced.

The Board found that there was insufficient evidence showing that the flashings were damaged. There was therefore no proper basis for ordering their wholesale replacement.

The case demonstrates that an owner cannot simply demand the most extensive or expensive form of rectification. The proposed remedy must be supported by evidence showing that it is reasonably necessary.

Why did the owner's expert evidence fail?

The parties had jointly appointed an expert to identify the source of the leak and recommend a method of rectification.

The expert produced two reports. One suggested that the leaks originated from the pitched roof or dormer roof and recommended reinstalling the dormer-roof flashings. A later report attributed the leaks to the pitched-roof valley flashings.

The Board was not persuaded by those conclusions.

It noted that the expert had not:

conducted independent water testing;
produced photographs showing damaged flashings;
documented physical defects in the flashings;
accessed and inspected the precise roof areas associated with the leaks; or
adequately verified information obtained from other sources.

The Board also considered the conclusions in the two reports to be potentially inconsistent.

This is an important practical lesson. Merely obtaining an expert report may not be enough. The expert's opinion must be supported by a clear methodology, objective testing, photographs, inspection records and a logical connection between the observed defect and the water entering the unit.

Why was the MCST's contractor believed?

The MCST's roofing contractor had physically accessed the roof and inspected the areas associated with the complaints.

The contractor identified gaps and defects involving roof tiles rather than damaged flashings. Its workers photographed the relevant areas and carried out repairs by applying sealant and several coats of waterproofing membrane.

The Board preferred this evidence because it was based on direct inspection and was supported by photographs of the actual areas in question.

The Board also found that the leaks had abated by the time of the hearing.

There was no evidence of extensive damage to the roof tiles, and there had not been widespread complaints of roof leakage following the contractor's earlier waterproofing works.

The owner therefore failed to prove that the MCST's repair methodology was unreasonable.

Can the Strata Titles Board award compensation for water damage?

The jurisdiction of the Strata Titles Board depends on the statutory provision under which the application is brought.

In Evershine, the owner's application sought to compel the MCST to take action in relation to the common-property roof. The Board held that it did not have jurisdiction in those proceedings to award the damages or compensation sought by the owner.

This distinction is important.

An application requiring an MCST to investigate or repair common property is not necessarily the same as a civil claim seeking financial compensation for:

damage to renovation works;
damaged furniture or belongings;
loss of rental income;
alternative accommodation expenses; or
other consequential losses.

Before commencing proceedings, an owner should identify precisely what remedy is required and whether the Strata Titles Board, the courts or another process has jurisdiction to grant it.

What evidence should an affected condominium owner collect?

A subsidiary proprietor dealing with repeated water seepage should preserve evidence from the beginning.

Useful evidence may include:

dated photographs and videos of each leakage incident;
records showing where water first appeared;
weather records for the relevant dates;
correspondence with the managing agent and MCST;
contractor attendance records;
quotations and invoices for temporary repairs;
moisture readings or thermal imaging;
water-ponding or controlled water-test results;
expert reports identifying the probable source;
photographs of the actual common-property defect;
records of damage to the interior of the unit; and
evidence that earlier repair attempts failed.

A strong expert report should explain not only what the expert believes caused the leak, but also how that conclusion was reached and why alternative causes were excluded.

What should an MCST do after receiving a water seepage complaint?

An MCST should avoid treating repeated leakage complaints as routine administrative matters.

A reasonable response may include:

acknowledging the complaint promptly;
arranging an inspection of both the affected unit and the relevant common property;
appointing a suitably qualified contractor or consultant;
documenting the inspection with photographs and written findings;
carrying out appropriate testing where the source is unclear;
giving the owner a reasonable explanation of the proposed rectification works;
supervising the repairs;
monitoring the affected area after heavy rain or further testing; and
considering more extensive renewal or replacement if repeated repairs continue to fail.

Detailed records can be critical if the dispute later proceeds to mediation, the Strata Titles Board or court.

What are the main lessons from the Evershine decision?

The decision provides several practical lessons for condominium owners and MCSTs.

A leak alone does not establish legal liability

An affected owner must usually show more than the mere presence of water. The owner must identify the probable source and demonstrate that the MCST failed to respond reasonably.

Expert reports must be evidence-based

An expert opinion may carry little weight if it is based on assumptions, unsupported information or an incomplete inspection.

Replacement must be shown to be necessary

The Board may not order complete replacement of a roof, flashing or waterproofing system merely because an owner prefers it to localised repairs.

MCSTs should document every step

Photographs, inspection records, contractor reports, warranties and evidence of follow-up works may demonstrate that the MCST acted reasonably.

The correct legal remedy matters

An application for repairs and a claim for financial compensation may involve different statutory provisions, jurisdictions and procedures.

Are you facing a dispute with your MCST over water seepage?

Disputes involving roof leaks, external walls, common pipes and waterproofing can become technically and legally complicated.

The outcome often depends on identifying:

whether the source is common property;
whether the MCST has acted reasonably;
whether repair or replacement is necessary;
whether expert testing is required;
what orders the Strata Titles Board can make; and
whether a separate claim for financial loss should be considered.

Early legal advice can help ensure that the correct evidence is obtained before repair works alter or remove the physical source of the leak.

Justin Chan Chambers LLP advises subsidiary proprietors, council members and management corporations on MCST disputes, common-property defects, water seepage claims and proceedings before the Strata Titles Board. Contact us to arrange a consultation regarding your condominium or strata-management dispute.

This article provides general information and does not constitute legal advice. The appropriate legal remedy will depend on the particular facts, evidence and procedural history of each matter.

Frequently asked questions

Does a roof leak automatically make the MCST legally liable?

No. In Evershine, the Board said the MCST’s duty was to act reasonably and did not impose strict liability merely because water had entered the unit.

Can an owner require the MCST to replace roof components?

Replacement must be shown to be reasonably necessary. Evidence should establish that the relevant component is in such poor condition that ordinary repair is no longer adequate.

What should expert evidence about roof seepage include?

A useful report should connect direct inspection, appropriate testing, photographs and documented defects to the path by which water entered the unit, while addressing reasonable alternative causes.

Can the Strata Titles Board award compensation for interior water damage?

Jurisdiction depends on the statutory basis and remedy sought. In Evershine, the Board held that it could not award the damages or compensation sought in that application.

What was the outcome in Evershine?

The Board dismissed the owner’s claim and ordered the owner to pay the MCST costs and disbursements fixed at S$10,000 all inclusive.

Who represented the MCST in Evershine?

The published Grounds of Decision records Justin Chan and Abigail Ong of Justin Chan Chambers as counsel for the MCST respondent.