Wong Yack Yoon v Wong Ah Chen: Easement of Access and Right to Park on Vacant Land
Wong Yack Yoon and Ho Choon Mun (appellants) appealed against the High Court's decision declaring Wong Ah Chen and Goh Yew Pong (respondents) as owners of a one-half share of Lot 1031N and ordering the removal of a wall built by the appellants. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, holding that the appellants had the exclusive right of possession of the frontage subject to an easement of access in favor of the respondents, and that the easement did not entitle the respondents to park their car on the frontage.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Appeal regarding easement rights. The court held that the easement of access did not entitle the respondents to park on the vacant land.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Yack Yoon | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Leong Sue Lynn, James Leslie Ponniah |
| Ho Choon Mun | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won | Leong Sue Lynn, James Leslie Ponniah |
| Wong Ah Chen (alias Woong Kun Chin) | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | George Pereira, Lim Lay See |
| Goh Yew Pong (alias Wu Yu Peng) | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | George Pereira, Lim Lay See |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of Appeal | No |
| Judith Prakash | Judge | Yes |
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | No |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Leong Sue Lynn | Wong and Lim |
| James Leslie Ponniah | Wong and Lim |
| George Pereira | Pereira and Tan |
| Lim Lay See | Choo and Lim LLC |
4. Facts
- In 1958, Melodies Limited constructed a block of two-storey shop-houses on land along Jalan Ayer.
- The shop-house comprised two self-contained flats, known as 4 Jalan Ayer (ground floor) and 4A Jalan Ayer (first floor).
- The appellants own the ground floor flat, and the respondents own the first floor flat.
- The shop-house was constructed on Lots 419-11 and 419-18, Mukim 24, which were subsequently amalgamated into Lot 1031N.
- The shop-house did not occupy the whole of the area of Lot 1031N, leaving vacant land to the front and rear.
- In 1959, the developer granted a 9,999-year lease of the ground floor flat to Phoon Ah Looi and conveyed a one-half, undivided share in the freehold estate of Lot 1031N.
- The developer also granted a 9,999-year lease of the first floor flat to Yim Lei Shong and conveyed a one-half, undivided share in the freehold estate of Lot 1031N.
- In 1995, the appellants built a white wall on the vacant land at the front of the shop-house.
- In 2003, the appellants extended the wall, making it impossible for the respondents to park their car on the frontage.
5. Formal Citations
- Wong Yack Yoon and Another v Wong Ah Chen (alias Woong Kun Chin) and Another, CA 56/2004, [2005] SGCA 20
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Lease of ground floor flat granted to Phoon Ah Looi for 9,999 years. | |
| Developer granted a lease of the first floor flat to Yim Lei Shong for 9,999 years. | |
| Developer conveyed to Phoon a one-half, undivided share in the freehold estate of Lot 1031N. | |
| Developer conveyed to Yim a one-half, undivided share in the freehold estate of Lot 1031N. | |
| Phoon assigned her lease of the ground floor flat and conveyed her one-half, undivided share in the freehold estate of Lot 1031N to Wong Yack Yoon and Kwan Ah Mei. | |
| Kwan assigned her interest in the lease and conveyed her interest in the freehold estate to Ho Choon Mun. | |
| Wong Ah Chen and Goh Yew Pong purchased the first floor flat. | |
| Appellants built a white wall on the vacant land at the front of the shop-house. | |
| Appellants extended the wall. | |
| Respondents filed an Originating Summons against the appellants. | |
| High Court made orders in favor of the respondents. | |
| Court of Appeal allowed the appeal of the appellants. | |
| Reasons for decision given by the Court of Appeal. |
7. Legal Issues
- Easement of Access
- Outcome: The court held that the easement of access did not entitle the respondents to park their car on the vacant land.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of easement
- Vehicular access
- Pedestrian access
- Related Cases:
- [1953] 2 All ER 728
- Exclusive Possession
- Outcome: The court held that the appellants had the exclusive right of possession of the frontage subject to the easement in favor of the respondents.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Leasehold interest
- Reversionary interest
- Related Cases:
- [1962] 1 All ER 146
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration that the respondents were the owners of a one-half, undivided share of Lot 1031N
- Order that the appellants remove the wall and the extension to it
9. Cause of Actions
- Declaration of Ownership
- Removal of Obstruction
10. Practice Areas
- Real Estate Law
- Property Law
- Land Rights
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wong Ah Chen alias Woong Kun Chin and Goh Yew Pong alias Wu Yu Peng v Wong Yack Yoon and Ho Choon Mun | High Court | Yes | [2004] SGHC 235 | Singapore | Refers to the High Court decision that was appealed against. |
| Rye v Rye | N/A | Yes | [1962] 1 All ER 146 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that lessees are entitled to the exclusive possession of the premises demised to them. |
| Ingram v Inland Revenue Commissioners | N/A | Yes | [1999] 1 All ER 297 | England and Wales | Cited to explain how various interests can subsist simultaneously in respect of the same land under English land law. |
| Seah Sye Kim v Chua Mui Ying | N/A | Yes | [1988] SLR 278 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the owner of the dominant and servient tenements must be different persons for an easement to exist. |
| MCST Plan No 549 v Chew Eu Hock Construction Co Pte Ltd | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 366 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that one cannot have an easement over one's own land. |
| Bulstrode v Lambert | N/A | Yes | [1953] 2 All ER 728 | England and Wales | Cited to contrast the wording of an easement that permits vehicular access. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Easement
- Right of way
- Vacant land
- Exclusive possession
- Reversionary interest
- Leasehold
- Freehold
- Frontage
- Demised premises
15.2 Keywords
- easement
- land
- property
- right of way
- possession
- lease
- Singapore
16. Subjects
- Property Law
- Land Law
- Easements
17. Areas of Law
- Land Law
- Easements
- Rights of Way