MCST sues developer, four others over alleged defects after concrete piece from condo balcony fell 20m

On Feb 15, 2025, a piece of cement mix apparently detached from the underside of a third-floor balcony at Block 105 and landed in the private enclosed space of a first-floor unit below.

Published Sep 14, 2026, 05:00 AM

Updated Sep 14, 2026, 05:00 AM

The MCST of Foresques Residences is suing the developer and four other parties over alleged balcony defects that caused concrete to fall 20 meters, posing serious safety risks.

Professional engineer Chan Chee Choon found 88 balconies in Block 105 to be affected by the defect, while other blocks showed no similar defects.

All five defendants deny liability; the main contractor is in creditors voluntary winding up.

SINGAPORE – A Bukit Panjang condominium’s developer and others involved in its construction have been sued over alleged construction defects after a piece of concrete detached from a balcony and fell 20m.

The incident led to the discovery that 60 per cent of balconies in one apartment block produced hollow sounds when their edges were tested.

The developer and the others sued – the condo’s architect, structural engineer, railing engineer and subcontractor – have disputed the allegations and denied liability.

They have separately filed their defences at the High Court.

The developer said it did not carry out construction of the condo, and had appointed competent parties to do the work.

The architecture firm said its drawings provided for a full reinforced concrete balcony slab, and it was not appointed to supervise structural works.

The structural engineer challenged the finding that the affected balconies are defective.

The railing engineer claimed its design is structurally sound and code-compliant. The subcontractor said the architect and engineers had checked its work.

Hollow sections in balconies

Foresque Residences, a 99-year leasehold development in Petir Road, received its temporary occupation permit in June 2014. It comprises five blocks and 496 units.

On Feb 15, 2025, a “cementitious patch” detached from the underside of a balcony on the third floor at Block 105 and landed in a first-floor unit below, according to court documents.

The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) was alerted to an incident involving fallen concrete at Block 105 Petir Road that day, but “as the matter is before the courts, we are unable to comment further”, said its spokesman.

According to court documents filed , BCA inspected the site on the same day and subsequently issued a Notice to Maintain to the MCST, requiring immediate safety measures and permanent rectification works.

Foresque Residences’ management corporation (MCST) later appointed professional engineer Chan Chee Choon of Castello Consultant to investigate the cause and to determine whether similar structural risks exist elsewhere in the development. After inspecting Block 105, Chan found that part of the balcony slab had not been built as intended . He said a 70mm section of concrete was missing, and the gap was later filled with cement mortar.

Chan alleged that the deviation from the design created a section vulnerable to separating from the main concrete.

To check whether similar structural risks existed elsewhere in the condo development, Chan carried out tests on the underside of the balcony slab edges. Subsequently, he reported finding no steel reinforcement at several sites. Hammer-tapping tests found hollow sections that could indicate poor bonding.

Inspections of the other four blocks did not uncover the same condition, the court documents noted. ST PHOTO: GIN TAY

Inspections of the other four blocks did not uncover the same condition, the court documents noted.

About 60 per cent of the balcony slab edges at Block 105 were apparently found to produce hollow sounds during the hammer-tapping tests. This, Chan alleged, indicated poor bonding and potential separation of the cementitious layer from the main concrete.

In total, 88 balconies in Block 105 were identified by Chan as affected by the defect. Inspections of the other four blocks did not uncover the same condition, the court documents noted.

The MCST, represented by Lim Tat from Aequitas Law, alleged that the defects at Block 105 pose a serious safety risk.

It is seeking damages from developer Wincheer Investment, architect Arc Studio Architecture + Urbanism, structural engineer KTP Consultants, professional engineer GLT Engineers and subcontractor Credence Engineering.

Developer says it did not carry out construction

Wincheer , represented by Vanessa Ku of Rajah & Tann Singapore, denied being responsible for the design, supply, installation or construction of the development.

It asserted that it had discharged its duty of care by hiring “competent” and “award-winning” independent contractors in the construction of the development.

In response to the MCST’s expert findings, Wincheer argued that the 70mm cementitious patch along the edge of the railing is not part of the structural support for the railing. Any detachment of the patch was a maintenance issue rather than a structural defect.

Court documents noted that when the developer conducted a site inspection in March and April 2026 , it did not observe any visible popping or cracking in balcony tiles and that there was no sign of structural distress.

Wincheer also pointed out that the MCST’s claims are legally time-barred and the six-year limitation period would have expired in 2021.

Other defendants deny responsibility

The project architect, Arc Studio Architecture + Urbanism, said its drawings provided for a full reinforced concrete balcony slab, and it never authorised the alleged deviation.

Represented by Anparasan Kamachi from Whitefern, the architect said it was not appointed as the structural engineer or qualified person for structural works, nor was it appointed to undertake the site supervision of the structural works. It also did not carry out the casting of the balcony slabs.

The architect also claimed to have exercised reasonable supervision, but it was not required to be constantly on site or inspect every part of the works. It added that it could not reasonably be expected to detect concealed or unreported deviations from the approved design.

KTP Consultants, responsible for the structural design of the condominium, also denied that the alleged defects compromised the structural integrity of the railing system.

Represented by Amanda Koh from Allyed Gateway, the civil and structural engineering firm challenged the testing methods adopted by the MCST’s expert, calling them unreliable or inappropriate.

Even if the alleged findings are accurate, it pointed to “isolated workmanship or construction execution issues confined to only certain areas in Block 105”, rather than a systemic structural design defect .

GLT Engineers, appointed to design the balcony railings, claimed that its design for the balcony railing system was structurally sound and code-compliant. Represented by Michael Por of Michael Por Law Corporation, GLT said the alleged defects were attributable to the construction of the balcony slab, which is outside its scope.

Credence Engineering, represented by Mark Lee of Mark Lee Chambers Law Corporation, said it was engaged by the main contractor to install balcony railings for certain blocks in the development.

The firm denied all allegations of negligence and claimed that its work was subjected to the checks and approval of multiple other parties, including Arc Studio Architecture and GLT Engineers.

The subcontractor said more than 14 years had passed since it was awarded the subcontract and that it no longer had most of its project records, leaving it unable to ascertain whether its railing works even covered Block 105.

The Accounting and Corporate Regulatory Authority record showed that the main contractor, Tiong Aik Construction, is undergoing creditors’ voluntary winding-up.

Joyce Lim covers Singapore’s property market and redevelopment trends.

Residential property

BCA/Building and Construction Authority

2025 年 2 月 15 日，一块水泥混合物似乎从 105 号楼三楼阳台的底部脱落，落入楼下一楼单元的私人封闭空间内。

发布于 2026 年 9 月 14 日上午 5:00

更新于2026年9月14日凌晨5:00

Foresques Residences 的 MCST 正在起诉开发商和其他四方，指控阳台缺陷导致混凝土从 20 米高处坠落，造成严重的安全隐患。

专业工程师陈志春发现 105 座的 88 个阳台受到缺陷影响，而其他楼栋则没有出现类似缺陷。

五名被告均否认承担责任；总承包商正在进行债权人自愿清算。

新加坡——武吉班让一栋公寓的开发商和其他参与建设的人员因涉嫌施工缺陷而被起诉，起因是一块混凝土从阳台上脱落并坠落了 20 米。

该事件导致人们发现，在测试某公寓楼的阳台边缘时，有 60% 的阳台会发出空洞的声音。

开发商和其他被告——公寓的建筑师、结构工程师、栏杆工程师和分包商——对这些指控提出异议，并否认承担责任。

他们已分别向高等法院提交了答辩状。

开发商表示，他们并未参与公寓的建设，而是委托了有资质的第三方进行施工。

该建筑事务所表示，其图纸规定的是全钢筋混凝土阳台板，并且该事务所并未被委任负责结构工程的监督工作。

结构工程师对受影响阳台存在缺陷的结论提出了质疑。

护栏工程师声称其设计结构稳固，符合规范。分包商则表示，建筑师和工程师已经检查过他们的工作。

阳台上的空心部分

位于佩蒂尔路的 Foresque Residences 是一个 99 年租赁产权的住宅项目，于 2014 年 6 月获得临时入住许可证。该项目由五栋楼和 496 个单元组成。

根据法庭文件，2025 年 2 月 15 日，105 号楼三楼阳台下方的一块“水泥补丁”脱落，落入楼下一楼的单元房内。

建设局（BCA）发言人表示，当天已接到有关贝蒂尔路第105座组屋发生混凝土掉落事故的报告，但“由于此事已提交法院审理，我们无法进一步置评”。

根据提交的法庭文件，BCA当天检查了现场，随后向MCST发出维护通知，要求立即采取安全措施和进行永久性整改工作。

Foresque Residences的管理公司（MCST）随后委任Castello Consultant的专业工程师陈志俊（Chan Chee Choon）调查事故原因，并确定该项目其他区域是否存在类似的结构风险。陈志俊在检查了105座后发现，部分阳台楼板的施工不符合规定。他表示，缺失了70毫米厚的混凝土，后来用水泥砂浆填补了缝隙。

陈先生声称，偏离设计图导致部分区域容易与主体混凝土分离。

为了检查公寓楼其他区域是否存在类似的结构风险，陈先生对阳台楼板边缘的底部进行了测试。随后，他报告称在多个地点未发现钢筋。锤击测试发现空心截面，这可能表明粘结不良。

法庭文件指出，对其他四栋楼的检查并未发现相同情况。（海峡时报照片：金泰）

法庭文件指出，对其他四个街区的检查并未发现同样的情况。

在对105座组屋阳台楼板边缘进行锤击测试时，发现约60%的楼板边缘会发出空洞的声音。陈先生认为，这表明粘结不良，水泥层可能与主混凝土分离。

陈先生确认，105座组屋共有88个阳台存在缺陷。法庭文件显示，对其他四座组屋的检查并未发现相同情况。

由 Aequitas Law 的 Lim Tat 代表的 MCST 声称，105 号区块的缺陷构成严重的安全风险。

该公司正在向开发商 Wincheer Investment、建筑师 Arc Studio Architecture + Urbanism、结构工程师 KTP Consultants、专业工程师 GLT Engineers 和分包商 Credence Engineering 寻求赔偿。

开发商称并未进行施工。

Wincheer公司由新加坡Rajah & Tann律师事务所的Vanessa Ku代表，否认对该项目的设计、供应、安装或施工负有责任。

该公司声称，其在开发建设过程中聘用了“称职的”和“屡获殊荣的”独立承包商，从而履行了其应尽的注意义务。

针对MCST的专家调查结果，Wincheer辩称，栏杆边缘70毫米厚的混凝土修补层并非栏杆的结构支撑部分。修补层的任何脱落都属于维护问题，而非结构缺陷。

法庭文件指出，开发商在 2026 年 3 月和 4 月进行现场检查时，没有发现阳台瓷砖有任何明显的爆裂或裂缝，也没有发现任何结构损坏的迹象。

Wincheer 还指出，MCST 的索赔已超过法律规定的时效，六年诉讼时效已于 2021 年到期。

其他被告否认承担责任

项目建筑师 Arc Studio Architecture + Urbanism 表示，其图纸规定的是全钢筋混凝土阳台板，并且从未授权进行所谓的偏离。

由Whitefern公司的Anparasan Kamachi代表的建筑师表示，他们并未被指定为结构工程师或结构工程合格人员，也未被指定负责结构工程的现场监理。此外，他们也没有进行阳台楼板的浇筑工作。

建筑师还声称已尽到合理的监督义务，但并未被要求时刻驻守现场或检查工程的每个部分。建筑师补充说，也不能合理地指望它发现那些隐蔽的或未报告的与已批准设计不符之处。

负责该公寓结构设计的 KTP 顾问公司也否认了所谓的缺陷会损害栏杆系统的结构完整性。

由 Allyed Gateway 的 Amanda Koh 代表的土木和结构工程公司对 MCST 专家采用的测试方法提出质疑，称其不可靠或不恰当。

即使所谓的调查结果准确无误，它也指向的是“仅限于 105 号楼某些区域的孤立工艺或施工执行问题”，而不是系统性的结构设计缺陷。

受委托设计阳台栏杆的GLT工程师公司声称，其设计的阳台栏杆系统结构稳固，符合规范。GLT公司由Michael Por律师事务所的Michael Por代表，表示所谓的缺陷是由于阳台楼板的施工造成的，这超出了其工作范围。

Credence Engineering 公司由 Mark Lee Chambers 律师事务所的 Mark Lee 代表，该公司表示，其受总承包商委托，为该开发项目中的某些楼栋安装阳台栏杆。

该公司否认所有疏忽指控，并声称其工作已通过包括 Arc Studio Architecture 和 GLT Engineers 在内的多个其他方的检查和批准。

分包商表示，自获得分包合同以来已经过去了 14 年多，并且它已经丢失了大部分项目记录，因此无法确定它的护栏工程是否覆盖了 105 号楼。

会计与企业管理局的记录显示，总承包商 Tiong Aik Construction 正在进行债权人自愿清算。

Joyce Lim负责报道新加坡房地产市场和重建趋势。

住宅物业

建设局/建筑管理局