On 12 April 1989, the plaintiffs commenced this action against the defendants for the following reliefs:

(1) A declaration that the first defendant has no power under the HUDC Housing Estates Act (Cap 131) ('the HUDC Act') to impose a levy on vehicles entering Chancery Court; alternatively, a declaration that the first defendant has acted unlawfully in imposing such a levy as such action amounts to private nuisance against the plaintiffs or, alternatively, unlawful interference with the plaintiffs' trade in that the first defendant's members did not approve the imposition of such levy and/or the first defendant's action caused the Housing & Development Board ('the HDB') to breach its tenancy agreement dated 7 October 1985 with the plaintiffs ('the HDB tenancy agreement').

(2) A declaration that the second to the thirteenth defendants as the management committee of the first defendant have no power under the HUDC Act either individually or collectively to impose the said levy; alternatively, a declaration that the said members of the management committee either individually or collectively have acted unlawfully in imposing the said levy as the action amounts to private nuisance against the plaintiffs and/or that the action is unlawful interference with the plaintiffs' trade in that the first defendant did not properly authorize the other defendants to impose the said levy and/or the said action caused the HDB to breach the HDB tenancy agreement.

(3) An injunction to restrain the first defendant and the other 12 defendants either individually or collectively as the management committee whether by itself or themselves or through their officers, servants and/or agents or otherwise howsoever from imposing any levy on vehicles and/or persons coming or entering Chancery Court and/or otherwise interfering or preventing or otherwise howsoever hindering any vehicles and/or persons coming or entering into Chancery Court for the purposes of visiting and/or shopping with the plaintiffs during the operational hours of the plaintiffs from 8.45am to 9.15pm every day from Monday to Sunday.

(4) An order that the defendants do pay the plaintiffs such damages as were caused by the imposition of the levy on vehicles entering Chancery Court.

(5) For such further or other reliefs as shall be just.

On the same day the writ was issued, the plaintiffs obtained an interim injunction against the defendants in terms of the permanent injunction sought in this action.

The relevant facts are as follows. Chancery Court is a housing estate which also has a number of shopping units within it. The estate was originally developed by the Housing & Urban Development Corporation ('HUDC') on land belonging to the HDB. The residential units were sold to about 150 purchasers on 99-year leases. The plaintiffs are a monthly tenant of the HDB of the commercial unit known as Block 36H Dunearn Road #01–44 Singapore 1130. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the plaintiffs covenanted to use the premises as a supermarket ('the supermarket') and for no other purpose.

The HUDC Act was enacted in 1984 to establish bodies corporate comprising owners of flats in HUDC housing estates to take over the maintenance and management of these estates from the HDB. For this purpose, the first defendant was constituted as the body corporate comprising all the owners of the 'flats' (which expression is defined in the HUDC Act to include the commercial units) in Chancery Court. The Act also provides for the annual election of a management committee by the members of the management corporation to manage the estate. The second to the thirteenth defendants are the current members of the management committee.

Pursuant to s 45 of the HUDC Act, the HDB granted a lease of the common property (as defined in the HUDC Act) of Chancery Court to all the flat-owners as tenants in common in equal shares for a term of years concurrent with the unexpired terms of their leases.

The power