Lee Tat v Management Corp: Issue Estoppel & Right of Way Dispute

Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd appealed against the decision of the High Court, which dismissed their application to restrict the residents of Grange Heights from using a right of way over Lot 111-31. The Court of Appeal, with Chao Hick Tin JA dissenting, dismissed the appeal, holding that the issue of the right of way had been conclusively determined in previous proceedings between the parties, giving rise to issue estoppel. The court found that the residents of Grange Heights had a right of way over Lot 111-31 to access Grange Road.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Lee Tat Development's appeal on right of way over Lot 111-31 was dismissed due to issue estoppel from prior proceedings.

1.7 Decision Date

11 April 2005

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Tan Cheng Han of ASG Law Corporation Ernest Balasubramaniam of ASG Law Corporation
Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Won	Edwin Lee of Rajah and Tann Looi Ming Ming of Rajah and Tann

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Belinda Ang Saw Ean	Judge	Yes
Chao Hick Tin	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
Yong Pung How	Chief Justice	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Cheng Han	ASG Law Corporation
Ernest Balasubramaniam	ASG Law Corporation
Edwin Lee	Rajah and Tann
Looi Ming Ming	Rajah and Tann

4. Facts

Lee Tat Development owned Lots 111-32 and 111-33, adjacent to Lot 111-31.
Management Corporation of Grange Heights represented residents of Grange Heights.
Grange Heights was built on Lot 687, which was created by amalgamating Lots 111-34 and 561.
Lot 111-31 was a road reserve over which Lots 111-32, 111-33, and 111-34 had a right of way.
Lee Tat erected a gate and fence on Lot 111-31, preventing Grange Heights residents from using it.
Previous proceedings in 1989 addressed the right of way dispute between the parties.
Lee Tat purchased the servient tenement (Lot 111-31) in January 1997.
Residents of Grange Heights have been using Lot 111-31 as a footpath since 1976.

5. Formal Citations

Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 (No 2), CA 89/2004, OS 825/2004, [2005] SGCA 22
Management Corp of Grange Heights – Strata Title No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd, , [1990] SLR 1193
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301, , [1992] 2 SLR 865
Collin Development (Pte) Ltd v Hong Leong Holdings Ltd, , [1975–1977] SLR 457

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1919-01-01	Land subdivided into Lots 111-30, 111-31, 111-32, 111-33 and 111-34
1974-01-01	Hong Leong erected three blocks of high rise apartments on Lot 111-34 and Lot 561
1976-01-01	Completion of Grange Heights
1989-04-01	Lee Tat erected an iron gate and fence on Lot 111-31
1990-12-05	Coomaraswamy J granted the MCST an injunction
1992-01-01	Court of Appeal upheld the first instance decision
1997-01-01	Lee Tat acquired the servient tenement
1997-12-17	Ching Mun Fong gave an undertaking on behalf of Lee Tat
1999-07-01	Lee Tat was held to be guilty of contempt of court
2004-03-26	Lee Tat and Ching were ordered to pay the MCST costs
2004-06-26	Lee Tat instituted Originating Summons No 825
2005-02-24	Appeal heard before the Court of Appeal
2005-04-12	Appeal dismissed

7. Legal Issues

Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The court held that issue estoppel applied, barring Lee Tat from relitigating the issue of right of way.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Identity of parties
  - Identity of subject matter
  - Final and conclusive judgment on the merits
  - Judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction
- Related Cases:
  - [1990] SLR 1193
  - [1992] 2 SLR 865
  - [2001] 2 SLR 436
  - [1991] 2 AC 93
  - [1967] 1 AC 853
  - [1964] 1 All ER 341
Right of Way
- Outcome: The court held that the residents of Grange Heights had a right of way over Lot 111-31 to access Grange Road.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Excessive use of easement
  - Amalgamation of dominant tenements
  - Enlargement of dominant tenement
  - Interference with easement
- Related Cases:
  - 91 LT 816
  - [1984] QB 747
  - [1975] Ch 408
  - [2001] 2 All ER 827

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration
Permanent Injunction
Order Directing Registrar of Titles and Deeds to Expunge Easements

9. Cause of Actions

Interference with Easement
Trespass

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Real Estate Law

11. Industries

Real Estate
Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Management Corp of Grange Heights – Strata Title No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1990] SLR 1193	Singapore	The High Court's decision in the 1989 proceedings was the basis for the issue estoppel argument.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 865	Singapore	The Court of Appeal's decision in the 1989 proceedings, affirming the High Court's decision, was the primary basis for the issue estoppel argument.
Collin Development (Pte) Ltd v Hong Leong Holdings Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1975–1977] SLR 457	Singapore	Cited for background on previous disputes, but the court disagreed with the reasoning for the dismissal of the counterclaim.
Harris v Flower and Sons	Court of Appeal	Yes	91 LT 816	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an easement granted for one parcel of land cannot be used for the benefit of an adjacent parcel of land.
Re Gordon and Regan	Ontario High Court	Yes	(1985) 15 DLR (4th) 641	Canada	Cited to support the argument that improper use of a servient tenement is unauthorized even if minimal.
Official Assignee of the estate of Tang Hsiu Lan, a bankrupt and Pua Ai Seok	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 SLR 436	Singapore	Cited for the definition of issue estoppel.
Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc	House of Lords	Yes	[1991] 2 AC 93	United Kingdom	Cited for the elements of issue estoppel.
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2)	House of Lords	Yes	[1967] 1 AC 853	United Kingdom	Cited for the requirement that the decision on the issue must have been a necessary step to the decision.
Graham v Philcox	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1984] QB 747	England and Wales	Cited to show that the enlargement of the dominant tenement by amalgamation does not affect the existence of the right of way so long as the user on the servient tenement is not excessive.
Collin Development (Pte) Ltd v Hong Leong Holdings Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1975–1977] SLR 202	Singapore	Upheld Chua J’s ruling that there was no substantial interference with Lee Tat’s right of way at the time to warrant the issue of an injunction.
Thoday v Thoday	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1964] 1 All ER 341	England and Wales	Cited for the scope of issue estoppel.
Williams v James	Court of Common Pleas	Yes	(1867) LR 2 CP 577	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a right of way can only be used to reach the land it serves, not to go elsewhere.
Purdom v Robinson	Supreme Court	Yes	(1899) 30 SCR 64	Canada	Cited for the restriction of an easement to the purposes for which it is originally granted.
Re Gordon and Regan	Ontario Court of Appeal	Yes	(1989) 66 DLR (4th) 384	Canada	Cited for the principle that the benefit of a right of way cannot be extended to lands purchased after the right of way was obtained.
Bracewell v Appleby	High Court	Yes	[1975] Ch 408	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that an injunction may not be granted if there is delay in bringing proceedings.
Peacock v Custins	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 2 All ER 827	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the burden on the owner of the servient tenement is not to be increased without his consent.
Das v Linden Mews Ltd	Lands Tribunal	Yes	[2003] 2 P & CR 58	England and Wales	Followed the decision in Peacock v Custins.
Massey v Boulden	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] 2 All ER 87	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that trivial use of a right of way by additional non-dominant land can be treated as ancillary.
Macepark (Whittlebury) Ltd v Sargeant	High Court	Yes	[2003] 1 WLR 2284	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that trivial use of a right of way by additional non-dominant land can be treated as ancillary.
White v Grand Hotel, Eastbourne, Limited	High Court	Yes	[1913] 1 Ch 113	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a change in user of the dominant tenement does not affect the right of way granted to the dominant tenement.
Bainbrigge v Baddeley	Court of Chancery	Yes	(1847) 2 Ph 705	England and Wales	Cited for the argument that suing in a different capacity means estoppel cannot arise.
Leggott v The Great Northern Railway Company	Queen's Bench Division	Yes	(1876) 1 QBD 599	England and Wales	Cited for the argument that issue estoppel could not apply because Lee Tat was now suing as the owner of the servient tenement and not as the owner of a dominant tenement.
Blake v O’Kelly	Court of Chancery (Ireland)	Yes	(1874) 9 IR 54	Ireland	Cited for the principle that where an issue was raised in an earlier action but was not decided, that did not preclude the plaintiff from instituting a second action raising the same issue.

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

Issue Estoppel
Right of Way
Easement
Dominant Tenement
Servient Tenement
Amalgamation
Grange Heights
Lot 111-31
Lot 111-34
Lot 561
Lot 687

15.2 Keywords

Issue Estoppel
Right of Way
Easement
Land Dispute
Singapore
Court of Appeal

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Res Judicata	90
Easements	70
Property Law	50

16. Subjects

Property Law
Civil Procedure
Real Estate
Land Dispute