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

The management corporation of Foresque Residences in Singapore has sued the condominium’s developer and four other parties over alleged balcony defects discovered after a piece of concrete fell about 20 metres. — TODAY file pic

First Published: Monday, 14 Sep 2026 10:46 AM MYT

SINGAPORE, Sept 14 — The management corporation of a condominium in Bukit Panjang, a residential area in north-west Singapore, has reportedly sued the development’s developer and four other parties over alleged balcony defects discovered after a piece of concrete fell about 20 metres from a third-floor balcony in February 2025.

According to The Straits Times, the incident occurred at Block 105 of Foresque Residences, a 496-unit condominium along Petir Road, and led to inspections which found about 60 per cent of the block’s balcony slab edges produced hollow sounds during hammer-tapping tests.

Court documents reportedly showed that professional engineer Chan Chee Choon, engaged by the management corporation, identified 88 balconies in Block 105 as affected, while inspections of the condominium’s other four blocks did not find the same condition.

Chan alleged that part of the balcony slab had not been built as designed, with a 70mm section of concrete missing and the gap subsequently filled with cement mortar, creating an area vulnerable to separation.

The management corporation, which claims the defects pose a serious safety risk, is seeking damages from developer Wincheer Investment, architect Arc Studio Architecture + Urbanism, structural engineer KTP Consultants, professional engineer GLT Engineers and subcontractor Credence Engineering.

Singapore’s Building and Construction Authority was alerted on February 15, 2025, inspected the site that day and later issued a Notice to Maintain requiring immediate safety measures and permanent rectification works, but declined further comment as the matter is before the courts.

Wincheer denied liability, saying it did not carry out the construction work, had appointed competent contractors, and considered the detached cementitious patch a maintenance issue rather than a structural defect.

The developer also argued that the claim is time-barred under the six-year limitation period and said its inspections in March and April 2026 found no visible cracking or signs of structural distress.

Arc Studio said its drawings specified a full reinforced concrete balcony slab, that it had not authorised the alleged deviation, and that it was not responsible for supervising structural works.

KTP and GLT also denied design-related responsibility, with KTP disputing the testing methods and describing any problems as isolated workmanship issues, while GLT maintained that its railing design was structurally sound and code-compliant.

Credence, meanwhile, denied negligence and said its railing work had been checked by other project parties, adding that after more than 14 years it no longer had sufficient records to determine whether its subcontract even covered Block 105.