Singapore condo sues five parties after concrete chunk falls 20 metres from balcony

In a recent lawsuit in Singapore, the management corporation of a Bukit Panjang condominium has filed claims against the developer and four other parties due to alleged balcony defects. The incident occurred in February 2025 when a 20-meter concrete chunk fell from a third-floor balcony at Block 105 of Foresque Residences, a 496-unit building along Petir Road.

The defects were discovered after inspections found that 60% of the balconies in the affected block had hollow-sounding slab edges. Professional engineer Chan Chee Choon identified 88 balconies as affected, with a 70mm section of concrete missing and filled with cement mortar, creating a weak area prone to separation.

The management corporation, citing the safety risk posed by these defects, is seeking damages from the developer, Wincheer Investment, as well as the architect, structural engineer, subcontractor, and a second engineering firm. Singapore's Building and Construction Authority was informed of the issue on February 15, 2025, and later issued a Notice to Maintain, requiring immediate safety measures and permanent repairs. However, the authority declined to comment further as the case is still in court.

Wincheer Investment denied liability, stating it did not carry out the construction work and considered the detached cementitious patch a maintenance issue. The developer also argued that the claim is time-barred under the six-year limitation period and that subsequent inspections found no visible cracking or structural distress.

Arc Studio Architecture + Urbanism claimed its drawings specified a full reinforced concrete balcony slab and denied any responsibility for supervising structural works. KTP Consultants and GLT Engineers also denied design-related responsibility, with KTP disputing the testing methods and GLT maintaining that its railing design was structurally sound and code-compliant.

Subcontractor Credence Engineering denied negligence, stating that its railing work had been checked by other project parties and that it no longer had sufficient records to determine its involvement in Block 105.