Lee Tat v MCST Plan No 301: Easement Extinguishment & Right of Way Dispute

Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd appealed against the High Court's decision in favor of Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 (MC) regarding a right of way over a Servient Tenement. The Court of Appeal, with Chan Sek Keong CJ delivering the judgment, allowed the appeal, holding that the easement had been extinguished due to significant changes in the Dominant Tenement and surrounding circumstances. The court found that the Residents have no right to use the Right of Way to access Lot 561 from Grange Road and vice versa.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Right of way dispute over Servient Tenement. Court held easement extinguished due to changes in Dominant Tenement and circumstances.

1.7 Decision Date

30 November 2008

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	Appellant	Corporation	Appeal Allowed	Won	Ernest Yogarajah s/o Balasubramaniam of Arfat Selvam Alliance LLC
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Edwin Lee of Rajah & Tann LLP Looi Ming Ming of Rajah & Tann LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Sek Keong	Chief Justice	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No
V K Rajah	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Ernest Yogarajah s/o Balasubramaniam	Arfat Selvam Alliance LLC
Edwin Lee	Rajah & Tann LLP
Looi Ming Ming	Rajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

Lee Tat owned the Servient Tenement and two of the Dominant Tenements.
The MC sought a declaration of its entitlement to repair and/or maintain a right of way over the Servient Tenement.
The Servient Tenement is a long, narrow strip of land adjacent to the Dominant Tenements.
In 1919, Mutual Trading Ltd granted a right of way over the Servient Tenement in favor of each of the Dominant Tenements.
In 1970, Hong Leong Holdings Ltd became the owner of Lot 111-34 and Lot 561.
Lot 561 has no access to Grange Road except via Lot 111-34 and the Servient Tenement.
Hong Leong Holdings Ltd amalgamated Lot 111-34 and Lot 561 into Lot 687 to develop a condominium (Grange Heights).
The original proposed layout of Grange Heights included the Servient Tenement, but this was rejected by the authorities.
All the residential units in Grange Heights are situated on Lot 561, while the tennis courts and changing rooms are on Lot 111-34.

5. Formal Citations

Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301, CA 20/2007, [2008] SGCA 47

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1919-01-01	Mutual Trading Ltd sold and conveyed the Dominant Tenements to various purchasers, granting a right of way over the Servient Tenement.
1970-01-01	Hong Leong Holdings Ltd became the owner of Lot 111-34 and Lot 561.
1973-01-01	Ownership of Lot 111-32 and Lot 111-33 passed to Collin Development Pte Ltd.
1974-01-01	Collin Development Pte Ltd commenced the First Action against Hong Leong Holdings Ltd.
1976-01-01	Lot 111-34 and Lot 561 were amalgamated into Lot 687.
1976-01-01	Trial for the First Action was heard.
1986-01-01	Collin Development Pte Ltd changed its name to Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd.
1989-04-27	The MC commenced the Second Action against Lee Tat.
1990-01-01	The High Court granted the MC a permanent injunction restraining Lee Tat from interfering with the Residents’ use of the Right of Way.
1992-01-01	Lee Tat’s appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed.
1997-01-27	Lee Tat acquired the Servient Tenement from the Official Receiver.
2004-01-01	The MC commenced the Present Action.
2004-01-01	Lee Tat filed OS 825/2004.
2004-01-01	The High Court dismissed Lee Tat’s claims in OS 825/2004.
2005-01-01	Lee Tat’s appeal against that decision was dismissed by a majority of the Court of Appeal.
2008-12-01	Judgment reserved.
2008-12-01	Court of Appeal allowed Lee Tat’s appeal.

7. Legal Issues

Extinguishment of Easement
- Outcome: The Court held that the easement was extinguished by operation of law due to the permanent and irreversible change in the character and nature of use of the dominant tenement and the drastic change in circumstances since the date of the grant.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Change in character of dominant tenement
  - Drastic change in circumstances
  - Frustration of purpose
- Related Cases:
  - [2007] 2 SLR 554
  - 74 LJ Ch 127
  - [1965] Ch 538
  - [1968] 1 WLR 589
  - [2001] Ch 379
Issue Estoppel
- Outcome: The Court held that issue estoppel did not apply because the main issue had never been decided on the merits and the Arnold exception applied.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Identity of issues
  - Identity of parties
  - Finality of judgment
- Related Cases:
  - [1991] 2 AC 93
  - (1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313
  - [1975] AC 581
Rights of Way
- Outcome: The Court held that the right of way granted in favor of lot A could not be used to access lot B which had been amalgamated with lot A to develop a condominium.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Excessive use
  - Use for non-dominant tenement
- Related Cases:
  - 74 LJ Ch 127
  - [2002] 1 WLR 1815

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration of Entitlement to Repair and Maintain Right of Way
Injunction

9. Cause of Actions

Declaration of Entitlement to Right of Way
Interference with Easement

10. Practice Areas

Real Estate Law
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Real Estate
Construction

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR 554	Singapore	Cited as the High Court decision in the Present Action, which was appealed against.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 (No 2)	High Court	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR 828	Singapore	Cited as the High Court decision in OS 825/2004, which was heard before the Present Action.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301 (No 2)	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR 157	Singapore	Cited as the Court of Appeal decision in OS 825/2004, which dismissed Lee Tat's appeal.
Harris v Flower	Court of Chancery	Yes	74 LJ Ch 127	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a right of way granted for the enjoyment of one close cannot be used for passing over that close to another close.
Hutton v Hamboro	Court of Exchequer	Yes	2 F & F 218; 175 ER 1031	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff has no cause of action unless the defendant's actions have caused substantial interference with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the right of way.
Pettey v Parsons	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1914] 2 Ch 653	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a plaintiff has no cause of action unless the defendant's actions have caused substantial interference with the plaintiff's enjoyment of the right of way.
Collin Development (Pte) Ltd v Hong Leong Holdings Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1975-1977] SLR 457	Singapore	Cited as the High Court decision in the First Action.
Collin Development (Pte) Ltd v Hong Leong Holdings Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1975-1977] SLR 202	Singapore	Cited as the Court of Appeal decision in the First Action.
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Grange Heights Strata Title No 301	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 865	Singapore	Cited as the Court of Appeal decision in the Second Action.
Management Corp Strata Title No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1990] SLR 1193	Singapore	Cited as the High Court decision in the Second Action.
Graham & Anor v Philcox & Anor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1984] 1 QB 747	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that on amalgamation, so long as the user of the servient tenement is not excessive, the enlargement of the dominant tenement by such amalgamation does not affect the existence of the right of way.
Henderson v Henderson	Court of Chancery	Yes	(1843) 3 Hare 100; 67 ER 313	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the court requires the parties to that litigation to bring forward their whole case, and will not permit the same parties to open the same subject of litigation in respect of matter which might have been brought forward as part of the subject in contest.
Yat Tung Investment Co Ltd v Dao Heng Bank Ltd	Privy Council	Yes	[1975] AC 581	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the shutting out of a “subject of litigation” is limited to cases where reasonable diligence would have caused a matter to be earlier raised.
Ching Mun Fong v Liu Cho Chit	High Court	Yes	[2000] 1 SLR 517	Singapore	Cited for the principle that abuse of the court’s process is the true basis for the operation of the extended res judicata doctrine.
Goh Nellie v Goh Lian Teck	High Court	Yes	[2007] 1 SLR 453	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the issues must be identical in the sense that the prior decision must traverse the same ground as the subsequent proceeding and the facts and circumstances giving rise to the earlier decision must not have changed or should be incapable of change.
Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc	House of Lords	Yes	[1991] 2 AC 93	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that there may be an exception to issue estoppel in the special circumstance that there has become available to a party further material relevant to the correct determination of a point involved in the earlier proceedings.
Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1967] 1 AC 853	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that all estoppels are not odious but must be applied so as to work justice and not injustice and I think the principle of issue estoppel must be applied to the circumstances of the subsequent case with this overriding consideration in mind.
Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1989] Ch. 63	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a change in the law subsequent to the first decision is capable of bringing the case within the exception to issue estoppel.
New Brunswick Railway Company v British and French Trust Corporation, Limited	House of Lords	Yes	[1939] AC 1	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the doctrine of estoppel is one founded on considerations of justice and good sense.
Republic of India v India Steamship Co Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1993] AC 410	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that res judicata is founded upon the public interest in finality of litigation rather than the achievement of justice as between the individual litigants.
Williams v James	Court of Common Pleas	Yes	(1867) LR 2 CP 577	England and Wales	Cited in dissenting judgment for the principle regarding the use of right of way.
John Purdom v John A Robinson	Supreme Court of Canada	Yes	(1899) 30 SCR 64	Canada	Cited in dissenting judgment for the principle regarding the use of right of way.
Bracewell v Appleby	High Court	Yes	[1975] Ch 408	England and Wales	Cited in dissenting judgment for the principle regarding the use of right of way.
Peacock v Custins	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2002] 1 WLR 1815	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the right to use a right of way is determined by the terms of the grant, specifying the dominant tenement for the purposes of which the right is created.
White v Grand Hotel, Eastbourne, Limited	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1913] 1 Ch 113	England and Wales	Cited in dissenting judgment for the principle that a change in user of the dominant tenement did not affect the right of way granted to the dominant tenement.
Re Gordon and Regan	High Court	Yes	(1985) 15 DLR (4th) 641	Canada	Cited for the principle that a right of way granted as an easement incidental to a specified property may not be used by the grantee for the same purpose in respect of another property.
Re Gordon and Regan	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1990) 66 DLR (4th) 384	Canada	Cited for the principle that the appellant seeks to extend the benefit of the right of way to lands purchased by the dominant owner after the right of way was obtained.
Miller v Tipling	Ontario Supreme Court	Yes	(1918) 43 DLR 469	Canada	Cited for the principle that a right of way appurtenant to a particular close must not be used colourably for the real purpose of reaching a different adjoining close.
Alvis v Harrison	House of Lords	Yes	(1991) 62 P & CR 10	Scotland	Cited for the principle that a servitude right of access enures to the benefit of the dominant tenement and no other.
Irvine Knitters Ltd. v. North Ayrshire Coop. Society Ltd.	Court Session	Yes	[1978 SC 109]	Scotland	Cited for the principle that dominant owners may not use the way, or permit its use by others, to obtain access to subjects other than the dominant tenement.
British Railways Board v Glass	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1965] Ch 538	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that if there be a radical change in the character of the dominant tenement, then the prescriptive right will not extend to it in that condition.
Giles v County Building Constructors (Hertford) Ltd	High Court	Yes	(1971) 22 P & CR 978	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the use of the convent site for the erection of seven modern dwelling units in place of the two existing houses, cannot properly be described as “changing the identity” or “radically changing the character” of the convent site.
Malden Farms Ltd v Nicholson	Ontario Court of Appeal	Yes	(1956) 3 DLR (2d) 236	Canada	Cited for the principle that building a beach resort on the dominant tenement, which was previously used as a private residence, resulted in excessive use of the right of way.
Jelbert v Davis	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1968] 1 WLR 589	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the use of the right of way by 200 caravans would cause considerable inconvenience to the servient owners and would plainly amount to excessive use.
Atwood v Bovis Homes Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2001] Ch 379	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that if there is a subsequent radical change in the use of the dominant tenement, a right of way acquired by prescription can only continue to be used in connection with the dominant tenement if the court can be satisfied that the change cannot result in the use of the way being greater in quantum or different in character from that while the way was for any continuous period of 20 or 40 years used in connection with the original use of the dominant tenement.
Wimbledon and Putney Commons Conservators v Dixon	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1875) 1 Ch D 362	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that a substantial change in the nature of the use of the dominant tenement will result in the right to use the way, obtained by prescription, being either destroyed or rendered impermissible.
Huckvale v Aegean Hotels	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1989) 58 P & CR 163	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that circumstances might have changed so drastically since the date of the original grant of an easement that it would offend common sense and reality for the court to hold that an easement still subsisted.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Land Titles (Strata) Act	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

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

15.2 Keywords

easement
right of way
land
strata title
servient tenement
dominant tenement
issue estoppel
res judicata
Singapore
property law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Rights of way	90
Easements	85
Property Law	75
Extinguishment	70
Issue Estoppel	65
Res Judicata	60
Breach of Contract	30
Contract Law	25

16. Subjects

Land
Easements
Real Property
Civil Procedure