Frontfield v MCST 938: Easement Extinguishment for Right of Way Abandonment

In Frontfield Investment Holding (Pte) Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title No 938, the High Court of Singapore heard a case regarding the extinguishment of a right of way. Frontfield Investment Holding, the plaintiff, sought a declaration that the right of way appurtenant to the dominant tenement (Gracious Mansions) over the servient tenement had been extinguished due to abandonment. The defendant was Management Corporation Strata Title No 938, the management corporation of Gracious Mansions. The court found in favor of the plaintiff, declaring the right of way extinguished, determining that the owners of Gracious Mansions had abandoned the easement.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Declaration granted.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Frontfield Investment sought to extinguish a right of way over Management Corporation Strata Title No 938's land, arguing abandonment. The court granted the declaration.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Frontfield Investment Holding (Pte) LtdPlaintiffCorporationJudgment for PlaintiffWon
Management Corporation Strata Title No 938DefendantCorporationClaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Judith PrakashJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Prakash PillaiAllen & Gledhill
K. Muralidharan PillaiAllen & Gledhill
K ShanmugamAllen & Gledhill
Andrew HoBraddell Brothers
Harry WeeBraddell Brothers

4. Facts

  1. Frontfield owns five equal undivided one-sixth shares in the servient tenement.
  2. Madam Lee Seok Chee owns the remaining one-sixth share of the servient tenement and granted Frontfield a power of attorney.
  3. The first defendant is the Management Corporation Strata Title No 938, the management corporation of Gracious Mansions.
  4. The relief sought by Frontfield is a declaration that the right of way and passage and all other rights and easements appurtenant to the dominant tenement subsisting over the servient tenement have been extinguished.
  5. The servient tenement was approved by the government to be used as a road in November 1951.
  6. In 1967, Jalan Rendang came into being as a public road.
  7. There was no gate in the fence leading to the servient tenement until 1997.
  8. The swimming pool, the guardhouse, the bin centre and the changing room had been built in such a way as to make it impossible for vehicles to gain access to the servient tenement from the dominant tenement even before the gate was constructed.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Frontfield Investment Holding (Pte) Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title No 938 and Others, OS 1533/2000, [2001] SGHC 161

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Land sold by Sir John Anderson to Ong Tiang Soon
Government approved the servient tenement to be used as a road
Servient tenement conveyed to six members of the Lee Kong Chian family
Approval for the subdivision of Lot 120 with the right of way on Lot 120-13 was given
Deed of partition between Lee Seok Chee and the other five Lees
Dominant tenement conveyed
Dominant tenement conveyed
Jalan Rendang came into being as a public road
Dominant tenement conveyed to Penford Pte Ltd
Court order declaring the right of way of adjacent lots extinguished
Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

  1. Abandonment of Easement
    • Outcome: The court found that the right of way over the servient tenement had been abandoned by the owners of Gracious Mansions.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Non-user of right of way
      • Intention to abandon right of way
      • Partial abandonment of rights
    • Related Cases:
      • [1924] 1 Ch 254
      • [1867] 2 Ch App 478
      • [1983] 2 VR 439
  2. Proper Parties to Proceedings
    • Outcome: The court held that it was not essential for Madam Lee to be a party and that the MC was a proper party in the case.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Proceedings by partial owner of servient tenement
      • Whether other owner of servient tenement must be made party
      • Whether management corporation proper defendant
  3. Extinguishment of Easement
    • Outcome: The court found that there was no doctrine that entitles it to strike down an easement because it considers the easement obsolete.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Obsolescence of easement
      • Change of circumstances

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Declaration that the right of way and passage and all other rights and easements appurtenant to the dominant tenement subsisting over the servient tenement have been extinguished.

9. Cause of Actions

  • Declaration for Extinguishment of Right of Way

10. Practice Areas

  • Real Estate Law
  • Property Law
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate
  • Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
MCST Plan No 549 v Chew Eu Hock Construction CoCourt of AppealYes[1998] 3 SLR 366SingaporeCited to support the argument that a management corporation was a proper party in a case involving a right of way asserted over land which had been developed into a condominium.
RSP Architects Planners & Engineers v Ocean FrontN/AYes[1996] 1 SLR 113SingaporeCited to support the argument that the MC has something akin to possession of the common property.
Tapling v JonesN/AYes[1865] 11 HL Cas 290N/ACited for the principle that an easement once abandoned is abandoned forever.
Scott v PapeN/AYes[1886] 31 Ch D 554N/ACited for the principle that an easement once abandoned is abandoned forever.
Swan v SinclairN/AYes[1924] 1 Ch 254N/ACited for the principle that non-user is not by itself conclusive that a private right of easement is abandoned and that the non-user must be considered with the surrounding circumstances.
R v ChorleyN/AYes[1848] 12 QB 515N/ACited for the principle that it is not so much the duration of the cesser as the nature of the act done by the grantee of the easement, or the adverse act acquiesced in by him, and the intention in him which either the one or the other indicates, which are material for the consideration of the jury.
Crossley & Sons Ltd v LightowlerN/AYes[1867] 2 Ch App 478N/ACited for the principle that a mere suspension of the exercise of a right is not sufficient to prove an intention to abandon it, but a long continued suspension may render it necessary for the person claiming the right to show that some indication was given during the period that he ceased to use the right of his intention to preserve it.
Treweeke v 36 Wolseley Road Pty LtdN/AYes[1973] 128 CLR 274AustraliaCited for the principle that the length of time during which non-use continues is important and the longer it continues the more readily will the conclusion be reached that the person entitled to the benefit of the easement may be deemed to have abandoned it.
McIntyre v PorterN/AYes[1983] 2 VR 439AustraliaCited for its summary of the pronouncements of various judges on the issue of abandonment of easements.
Ward v WardN/AYes[1852] 7 Exch 838N/ACited to demonstrate that the use of an alternative means of access to the dominant tenement is not necessarily relevant to the question whether non-user may amount to an abandonment of a right of way.
Gotobed v PridmoreN/AYes[1970] 115 Sol Jo 78N/ACited to demonstrate that to establish abandonment the conduct of the dominant owner must have been such as to make it clear that he had at the relevant time a firm intention that neither he nor any successor in title should thereafter make use of the easement.
James v StevensonN/AYes[1893] AC 162N/ACited for the observation that it is one thing not to assert an intention to use a way, and another thing to assert an intention to abandon it.
Obadia v MorrisN/AYes[1974] 232 EG 333N/ACited as a case where the owners of the dominant tenement were unaware of the existence of the right of way and it was held that if you were ignorant of a right you could not form an intention to abandon it.
Proprietors Strata Plan No 9968 v Proprietors Strata Plan No 11173N/AYes[1979] 2 NSWLR 605AustraliaCited for the proposition that the law recognises that an easement creates a parcel of separate rights and some of these rights can be abandoned without necessarily affecting the others.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 1999 Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Right of way
  • Easement
  • Abandonment
  • Dominant tenement
  • Servient tenement
  • Extinguishment
  • Management corporation
  • Strata title
  • Non-user
  • Intention to abandon

15.2 Keywords

  • Right of way
  • Easement
  • Abandonment
  • Land
  • Property
  • Singapore
  • High Court
  • Real Estate
  • Frontfield
  • MCST 938

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Easements95
Strata Titles80
Property Law75
Civil Procedure60
Contracts30

16. Subjects

  • Property Law
  • Real Estate
  • Easements
  • Land Law