Xpress Print v Monocrafts: Right of Support for Buildings & Negligence in Excavation
In Xpress Print Pte Ltd v Monocrafts Pte Ltd, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed a dispute between neighboring landowners concerning excavation work that caused damage to Xpress Print's property. Xpress Print sued Monocrafts for negligence, wrongful interference of support, and nuisance. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that a landowner has a right of support for buildings on their land from neighboring lands from the time such buildings are erected. The court also found that the duty lies on the landowner and it cannot be disposed of by delegation.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Court of Appeal held landowners have a right to support for buildings on their land from neighboring lands from the time of construction. Negligence in excavation causing damage is actionable.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xpress Print Pte Ltd | Appellant | Corporation | Appeal allowed | Won | |
| Monocrafts Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Appeal dismissed | Lost | |
| L & B Engineering (S) Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | Default judgment against them | Default |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | No |
| L P Thean | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- Xpress Print owned a plot of land with an eight-story industrial building.
- Monocrafts owned an adjacent plot of land and began constructing an industrial building with a basement.
- Contractors erected a temporary retaining wall that proved inadequate.
- Excavation caused soil subsidence and damage to Xpress Print's property, including cracks and burst water pipes.
- A 'stop works order' was issued by the Building Control Division.
- Further soil subsidence and damage occurred after the initial repairs.
- Xpress Print sued Monocrafts and the contractors for damages.
5. Formal Citations
- Xpress Print Pte Ltd v Monocrafts Pte Ltd, CA 202/1999, [2000] SGCA 37
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Communications Techno Centre completed. | |
| Monocrafts began constructing an industrial building and erected a temporary retaining wall. | |
| Xpress Print discovered cracks along the driveway of their building. | |
| Cracks on the driveway widened and water pipes burst. | |
| Water pipes on Xpress Print's land burst again. | |
| Building Control Division issued a 'stop works order' to Monocrafts. | |
| Building Control Division permitted works to continue for repair of retaining wall. | |
| Building Control Division gave permission for works to continue after repairs to the retaining wall were completed. | |
| Further soil subsidence and damage to Xpress Print's property occurred. | |
| Building Control Division issued a further stop works order. | |
| Xpress Print commenced a suit against Monocrafts and L & B Engineering (S) Pte Ltd. | |
| Court of Appeal decision. |
7. Legal Issues
- Right of Support
- Outcome: The court held that a landowner has a right of support in respect of buildings by neighboring lands from the time such buildings are erected.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Extent of right of support to buildings
- Distinction between land in natural state and land with building
- Distinction between registered and unregistered land
- Related Cases:
- [1881] 6 App Cas 740
- [1896] 3 SSLR 80
- Negligence
- Outcome: The court found that there was a strong case for liability against the first respondents in negligence, independent of any interference with the right of support.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Duty of care in excavation
- Non-delegable duty of landowner
- Nuisance
- Outcome: The court stated that the action for withdrawal of a right of support is equivalent or akin to an action under the tort of nuisance.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Monetary Damages
9. Cause of Actions
- Negligence
- Wrongful Interference of Support
- Nuisance
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Commercial Litigation
- Property Law
11. Industries
- Construction
- Manufacturing
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dalton v Angus | House of Lords | Yes | [1881] 6 App Cas 740 | England and Wales | Discusses the right to lateral support from adjoining land and whether it extends to buildings. Overruled in part by this judgment. |
| Lee Quee Siew v Lim Hock Siew | Court of Appeal of the Straits Settlements | Yes | [1896] 3 SSLR 80 | Singapore | Applied Dalton v Angus in Singapore context, holding that a landowner can excavate up to the foot of a neighbor's wall without liability if no trespass occurs. Overruled by this judgment. |
| Yong Joo Lin & Ors v Fung Poi Fong | Court of Appeal of the Straits Settlements | Yes | [1941] MLJ 63 | Malaysia | Considered Dalton v Angus and held that a common law right of support for buildings comes into existence after twenty years' uninterrupted user. |
| Fyvie v Anand | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | 1994 NSW Lexis 13219 | Australia | Discusses the archaic state of the law regarding support of land by adjoining land under the Torrens system. |
| Wilton v Hansen | Manitoba Court of Appeal | Yes | [1969] 4 DLR (3d) 167 | Canada | Held that liability can be based on negligence, applying the maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. |
| Walker v Strosnider | Court of Appeal of West Virginia | Yes | 67 W Va 39 | United States | Imposed a duty of care on the excavator to avoid reckless and unnecessary conduct that could damage adjacent buildings. |
| Bognuda v Upton & Shearer Ltd | New Zealand Court of Appeal | Yes | [1972] NZLR 741 | New Zealand | Held that a landowner owes a duty to use reasonable care in carrying out excavation so as not to damage adjoining buildings. |
| Donoghue v Stevenson | House of Lords | Yes | [1932] AC 562 | England and Wales | Cited for the expansion of the tort of negligence. |
| Hicks v Lake MacQuarie Pty Ltd | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | 1992 NSW Lexis 6983 | Australia | Dealt with claims in nuisance arising through the withdrawal of a right of lateral support. |
| Lim Hong Seng v East Coast Medicare Centre Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR 685 | Singapore | Discusses the acquisition of easements by prescription in respect of registered land. |
| Trustees of the Estate of Cheong Eak Chong v Medway Investments Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 329 | Singapore | Followed Lim Hong Seng's case regarding the acquisition of easements by prescription. |
| MCST Plan No 549 v Chew Eu Hock Construction Co Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR 366 | Singapore | Cited Lim Hong Seng's case without disapproval. |
| Bower v Peate | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | [] 1 QBD 321 | England and Wales | Authority for the proposition that the duty lies on the landowner and it cannot be disposed of by delegation. |
| Humphries v Brogden | Queen's Bench | Yes | 12 QB 744 | England and Wales | Mentioned in the context of the right to the enjoyment of one's own property. |
| Rowbotham v Wilson | Exchequer Chamber | Yes | 8 E & B 142 | England and Wales | Mentioned in the context of the right to the enjoyment of one's own property. |
| Bonomi v Backhouse | Exchequer Chamber | Yes | 1 EB & E 639 | England and Wales | Discusses the right of support and the cause of action for its breach. |
| Backhouse v Bonomi | House of Lords | Yes | 9 HLC 512 | England and Wales | Discusses the right of support and the cause of action for its breach. |
| Caledonian Railway Company v Sprot | House of Lords | Yes | 2 Macq 449 | Scotland | Mentioned in the context of rights of support. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| No applicable statutes | |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Right of support
- Lateral support
- Excavation
- Subsidence
- Retaining wall
- Easement
- Negligence
- Nuisance
- Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas
- Non-delegable duty
15.2 Keywords
- Right of support
- Excavation
- Negligence
- Nuisance
- Land
- Building
- Singapore
- Construction
- Easement
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Rights of Support | 95 |
| Property Law | 90 |
| Easements | 80 |
| Negligence | 70 |
| Nuisance | 60 |
| Breach of Contract | 30 |
| Construction Law | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Land Law
- Construction Law
- Tort Law
- Property Law