Shattered glass, water seepage: Canberra Residences owners sue contractor over unresolved defects

SINGAPORE – Residents of Canberra Residences in Sembawang are heading to court over claims that defects at the condominium remain unresolved more than a decade after the development was completed.

The management corporation (MCST) is suing main contractor MCC Engineering (Singapore), formerly known as China Jingye Construction Engineering (Singapore), over an alleged breach of a 2020 settlement agreement.

The dispute dates back to June 2019, when the MCST commenced its legal proceedings for the first time against condo developer MCC Land (Singapore) and 17 other parties over alleged defects at the project.

The lawsuit ended after the MCST, main contractor and developer signed a settlement agreement on Sept 1, 2020. The agreement was intended to settle all claims, demands and liabilities arising from the development and the earlier lawsuit.

It required the contractor to carry out rectification, upgrading and drainage works at the development.

But in its latest lawsuit, the MCST – represented by Drew and Napier managing director for dispute resolution Mahesh Rai – alleged that it is still grappling with water ponding at lift lobbies and basement areas, as well as water seepage throughout the development.

Its statement of claim, filed in 2025, noted other alleged issues such as defective and incomplete paintwork, exposed and rusting steel fixtures and shattered balcony glass panels.

Canberra Residences received its temporary occupation permit in June 2013. The condominium has 13 blocks and 320 units. It also has a basement carpark, a swimming pool, two gymnasiums, a clubhouse, children’s playground and barbeque pits.

Management council chairman Leslie Lye told The Straits Times that residents began encountering defects soon after they moved into the development in 2013.

“Some homeowners had floor tiles pop up. One resident had an entire kitchen cabinet above the stove collapse. It was reported by the media. Others saw their cabinets sagging,” Lye recalled.

Many residents approached the developer directly and some defects were repaired.

“But soon after, more problems were discovered. More than half of the residents experienced water seepage into their units after heavy rain. There was also water ponding at lift lobbies and basement carpark,” said Lye.

Glass panels shattered

Another concern was the over 4,000 glass panels installed at balconies and elsewhere around the development, Lye added.

He said that over time, about 400 had spontaneously shattered. The developer agreed to replace the balcony glass panels, but the replacement exercise was halted twice because of disagreements over the quality of the panels.

A penthouse owner who wanted to be known as only Gan S.T. said his balcony glass has been replaced twice since he moved in in 2013. Earlier in 2026, a third panel shattered, said Gan.

Under the settlement agreement, MCC Land and MCC Engineering had agreed to carry a range of rectification works. These included replacement of balcony glass, as well as tackling ponding at lift lobbies, water seepage, defective paintwork, floor finishes and issues at the swimming pool and water features.

The MCST claimed in its latest lawsuit that the contractor had breached the agreement as the replacement of the glass was not in accordance with the agreed method, which resulted in the shattering of some replaced glass panels.

The agreement also set out timelines for rectification works to be completed within 12 months after the parties come to an agreement on the method to be used for these works.

The MCST’s position is that the detailed methods were agreed on on March 5, 2021, hence the rectification works should have been completed a year later, by March 5, 2022.

It alleged that the works were not completed, or not carried out according to the agreed methods and standards.

It also alleged that even when rectification works were completed, the defendant failed to rectify defects that arose within the 12-month liability period.

Court documents filed stated that other problems remain.

These include water ponding at the ground floor and basement areas and seepage in both gyms that resulted in stains, lime bloom and corrosion. There is also water ingress at staircases and private units.

Defendant disputes claims

Main contractor MCC Engineering – represented by Kevin Kwek, director of law firm Legal Solutions – has denied breaching the 2020 settlement agreement.

In its defendant’s reply, the contractor claimed to have completed most of the rectification works. In cases where it could not carry out the works, it said this was because the MCST failed to provide access, approvals or confirmations needed for works to proceed.

MCC Engineering also disputed that March 5, 2022, was an absolute completion deadline for the rectification works, as the timeline for completion was subject to several conditions, including full and uninterrupted access to be provided by the MCST and regulatory clearances.

It also cited delays which it attributed to the Covid-19 outbreak.

According to its defence, balcony glass replacements for the condo units were completed in October 2023, except for two units. In one unit, the glass could not be replaced because of an obstruction by a partition wall. Another unit had invisible grilles hindering access.

It also claimed to have completed repainting and lift lobby works by January 2023. Water seepage works were completed by the end of December 2021, while floor finish works were completed by January 2022.

The contractor said some of the current defects are new and fall outside of the settlement agreement. They argued that the alleged defects arose from fair wear and tear or environmental staining. They could also be a result of poor maintenance by the MCST or damage by third parties, it said.

Beyond rectification works, the MCST had also alleged that most upgrading works agreed upon in the settlement remain outstanding, including an electronic security system, corridor louvres, perimeter and drainage works and shelters at common amenities.

MCC Engineering disputed those claims as well, saying some works were dependent on approvals, agreed specifications or formal directions from the MCST. On drainage, it says several components were completed while other works stalled because it did not receive the necessary approval or access to proceed.