Lemon Grass v Peranakan Place: Dispute over Right of Access in Tenancy Agreement

Lemon Grass Pte Ltd sued Peranakan Place Complex Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore on May 24, 2002, alleging breach of a tenancy agreement. Lemon Grass claimed rights of access and right of way to ground floor toilets through a neighboring premise, based on the tenancy agreement and a collateral agreement. The court, led by Judicial Commissioner Belinda Ang Saw Ean, dismissed Lemon Grass's claim, finding no breach of the tenancy agreement and no enforceable collateral agreement. The defendant's counterclaim for unpaid charges was also dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiffs' action dismissed with costs to the Defendants; Defendants' Counterclaim dismissed with costs to the Plaintiffs.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Lemon Grass sued Peranakan Place for breach of a tenancy agreement, claiming rights of access to toilets through a neighboring premise. The court dismissed the claim.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Lemon Grass Pte LtdPlaintiffCorporationClaim DismissedLost
Peranakan Place Complex Pte LtdDefendantCorporationCounterclaim DismissedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw EanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Tan Teng MuanMallal & Namazie
Kwok Mei Yui DeannaMallal & Namazie
Chenthil KumarasingamHarry Elias Partnership
Lawrence QuaheHarry Elias Partnership

4. Facts

  1. Lemon Grass operated a restaurant at Peranakan Place.
  2. Lemon Grass claimed a right of access to ground floor toilets through a neighboring premise.
  3. The claimed right of access was through a section of the common corridor leased to Delifrance.
  4. Delifrance gave up its premises, and BreadTalk, the new tenant, required the doorway to be sealed.
  5. Lemon Grass alleged that the sealing of the doorway deprived their customers of a shortcut to the toilets.
  6. Lemon Grass claimed that Mr. Ong represented that the way to the ground floor toilets would be the same as before.
  7. The December 1999 lease did not explicitly grant a right of access through the adjacent premises.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Lemon Grass Pte Ltd v Peranakan Place Complex Pte Ltd, Suit 1311/2001, [2002] SGHC 113

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Tenancy agreement signed between GGW Gastrofun Pte Ltd and Peranakan Place Complex Pte Ltd for units 01-01/02.
Lemon Grass acquired the restaurant business from GGW following a joint venture.
Novation Agreement signed, transferring tenancies to Lemon Grass, effective June 1, 1995.
Lemon Grass rented the Additional Space for $2,000 a month, effective October 1, 1996.
All three areas occupied by Esmirada were brought under one tenancy agreement.
Defendants leased unit 01/09A to Lemon Grass.
Lemon Grass renewed the tenancy for all four areas for a period of one year.
Last renewal of tenancy agreement for a three-year term, effective January 1, 2000, expiring December 31, 2002.
Doorway boarded up for reinstatement works by Delifrance.
Delifrance gave up its premises.
Doorway boarded up after BreadTalk took over the premises.
Lemon Grass issued proceedings.
Lemon Grass vacated the premises.
Judgment date.

7. Legal Issues

  1. Breach of Contract
    • Outcome: The court found no breach of contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interpretation of contractual terms
      • Existence of implied terms
  2. Collateral Contract
    • Outcome: The court found no enforceable collateral contract.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Admissibility of parol evidence
      • Certainty of terms
      • Intention to create legal relations
  3. Proprietary Estoppel
    • Outcome: The court rejected the claim based on proprietary estoppel.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Assurance
      • Reliance
      • Detriment
      • Unconscionability
  4. Derogation from Grant
    • Outcome: The court rejected the claim based on derogation from grant.
    • Category: Substantive

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Damages
  2. Declaration that they are entitled to rescind the December 1999 lease

9. Cause of Actions

  • Breach of Contract
  • Breach of Collateral Contract
  • Proprietary Estoppel
  • Derogation from Grant

10. Practice Areas

  • Commercial Litigation
  • Landlord and Tenant Law

11. Industries

  • Food and Beverage
  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
West v SharpN/AYes[2000] 79 P & CR 327N/ACited for the principle that the nature and extent of a right of way created by an express grant depends on the language of the deed of grant.
Sanderson v Berwick-Upon-Tweed CorpCourt of AppealYes[1884] 13 QBD 547England and WalesCited to illustrate the importance of reserving a right of way in a lease when granting rights to another tenant.
Saga Foodstuffs Manufacturing (Pte) LtdN/AYes[1995] 1 SLR 739SingaporeCited for the principle that a petition tendered to prove the truth or validity of views, opinions and comments of customers offends the hearsay rule and is therefore inadmissible.
Aw Kew Lim v PPN/AYes[1987] 2 MLJ 601N/ACited for the principle that the court is entitled to reject hearsay evidence even though Counsel did not object.
Mui Bank Bhd Johor v Tee Puat KuayN/AYes[1993] 3 MLJ 239N/ACited for the principle that the court is entitled to reject hearsay evidence even though Counsel did not object.
Heilbut Symons & Co v BuckletonN/AYes[1913] AC 30N/ACited for the legal requirements of a collateral contract.
De Lassalle v GuildfordN/AYes[1901] 2 KB 215N/ACited for the principle that the statement purporting to be the contractual promise in such a collateral contract must be promissory in nature or effect rather than representational.
Wells (Merstham) v Buckland Sand & Silica LtdN/AYes[1965] 2 QB 170N/ACited for the principle that the statement purporting to be the contractual promise in such a collateral contract must be promissory in nature or effect rather than representational.
Esso Petroleum v MardenN/AYes[1976] 1QB 801N/ACited for the principle that the statement purporting to be the contractual promise in such a collateral contract must be promissory in nature or effect rather than representational.
Kleinworth Benson Ltd v Malaysia Mining Corporation BerhadN/AYes[1989] 1 All E.R. 785N/ACited for the principle that it is for the party seeking to rely upon the collateral contract who has to bear the burden of establishing that both parties intended to create a legally binding contract.
Latham v Credit Suisse First BostonCourt of AppealYes[2000] 2SLR 693SingaporeCited for the principle that Section 94(b) only allows the admission of evidence of a collateral contract on matters, which are not inconsistent with the written agreement.
Ng Lay Choo Marion v Lok Lai OiN/AYes[1995] 3 SLR 221SingaporeCited for the principle that Section 94(b) only allows the admission of evidence of a collateral contract on matters, which are not inconsistent with the written agreement.
Dillwyn v LlewelynN/AYes(1862) 4 De GF & J 517N/ACited for the principle that if the owner of land requests or allows another to incur expenditure or otherwise prejudice himself under an expectation created or encouraged by the owner that he will obtain an interest in the land, that raises an equity in the other which is satisfied in whatever is the most appropriate way.
Ramsden v DysonN/AYes(1866) LR 1 HL 129N/ACited for the principle that if the owner of land requests or allows another to incur expenditure or otherwise prejudice himself under an expectation created or encouraged by the owner that he will obtain an interest in the land, that raises an equity in the other which is satisfied in whatever is the most appropriate way.
Taylor Fashions Ltd v Liverpool Victoria Trustees Co LtdN/AYes[1982] QB 133N/ACited for the principle that to establish a claim in proprietory estoppel, three elements must be shown: (a) an assurance, (b) a reliance, and (3) a detriment. Once established, the question ultimately is whether or not the assertion of strict legal rights would be unconscionable.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
s 94(b) Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Ed)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Right of access
  • Right of way
  • Tenancy agreement
  • Collateral contract
  • Proprietary estoppel
  • Derogation from grant
  • Common corridor
  • Adjacent premises
  • Quiet enjoyment
  • Gratuitous licence

15.2 Keywords

  • tenancy agreement
  • right of access
  • collateral contract
  • proprietary estoppel
  • Singapore
  • Peranakan Place
  • Lemon Grass

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Contract Law90
Landlord and Tenant Law80
Property Law40
Estoppel30
Evidence25

16. Subjects

  • Contract Law
  • Land Law
  • Evidence Law