Management Corporation v Lee Tat: Dispute over Right of Way and Reconstitution of Court of Appeal

The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 sued Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd in the High Court of Singapore, seeking a declaration that the Court of Appeal has the jurisdiction to reopen and set aside its earlier decision regarding a right of way over a strip of land. Choo Han Teck J dismissed the plaintiff's application, holding that the Court of Appeal's decision was final and binding, and that the court should not review its own judgment in the same case.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Plaintiff's application dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court addresses whether the Court of Appeal can reconstitute to set aside its own judgment regarding a right-of-way dispute.

1.7 Decision Date

19 October 2009

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	Defendant	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Won	Tan Cheng Han of Arfat Selvam Alliance LLC Ernest Balasubramaniam of Arfat Selvam Alliance LLC
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301	Plaintiff	Corporation	Application Dismissed	Lost	Looi Ming Ming of Rajah & Tann LLP Edwin Lee Peng Khoon of Rajah & Tann LLP Sundaresh Menon of Rajah & Tann LLP

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Choo Han Teck	Judge	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Tan Cheng Han	Arfat Selvam Alliance LLC
Ernest Balasubramaniam	Arfat Selvam Alliance LLC
Looi Ming Ming	Rajah & Tann LLP
Edwin Lee Peng Khoon	Rajah & Tann LLP
Sundaresh Menon	Rajah & Tann LLP

4. Facts

The plaintiff and defendant have been in a 30-year dispute over a right of way.
The dispute concerns a strip of land known as Lot 111-31.
The plaintiff is the management corporation of Grange Heights.
The defendant acquired the servient tenement in 1997.
The Court of Appeal previously ruled on the right of way in 2005.
The Court of Appeal overturned the 2005 ruling in 2008.
The plaintiff sought to reconstitute the Court of Appeal to set aside the 2008 judgment.

5. Formal Citations

Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd, OS 875/2009, [2009] SGHC 234

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1974-01-01	First action regarding the right of way. Judgement by FA Chua J.
1989-01-01	Second action where the plaintiff obtained an order for a permanent injunction against the defendant. Judgement by Coomaraswamy J.
1997-01-17	Defendant acquired the servient tenement.
2004-01-01	Parties were back in court.
2005-01-01	Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
2007-01-01	Plaintiff applied to Woo J for an order granting leave for it to repair the servient tenement at its own expense.
2008-12-01	Court of Appeal allowed the defendant’s appeal.
2009-06-29	Plaintiff’s application in Summons No 3446 of 2009 dated 29 June 2009 to the Court of Appeal praying for an order to reconstitute the Court of Appeal to set aside the 2008 judgment.
2009-08-03	Plaintiff filed Originating Summons No 875 of 2009.
2009-10-20	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Jurisdiction of the Court of Appeal
- Outcome: The court held that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant the reliefs sought by the plaintiff.
- Category: Jurisdictional
- Sub-Issues:
  - Power to reopen and set aside its own decisions
  - Reconstitution of the court for rehearing
Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court found that the doctrine of res judicata applied, and the previous judgment was final.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Exceptions to res judicata
  - Finality principle vs. justice principle
Breach of Natural Justice
- Outcome: The court held that the alleged breach of natural justice did not warrant setting aside the final judgment.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to hear counsel on relevant arguments

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration that the Court of Appeal has jurisdiction to reopen and set aside its earlier decision
Reconstitution of the Court of Appeal to rehear matters

9. Cause of Actions

Declaration
Injunction

10. Practice Areas

Civil Litigation
Real Estate Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Collin Development Pte Ltd v Hong Leong Holdings Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1975-1977] SLR 457	Singapore	Cited for the initial right of way recognition.
Collin Development Pte Ltd v Hong Leong Holdings Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1975-1977] SLR 202	Singapore	Cited for the initial right of way recognition on appeal.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1990] SLR 1193	Singapore	Cited for the permanent injunction order against the defendant.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1992] 2 SLR 865	Singapore	Cited for the dismissal of the defendant's appeal regarding the permanent injunction.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR 828	Singapore	Cited for the rejection of the defendant's argument that the right of way did not extend to lot 561.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2005] 3 SLR 157	Singapore	Cited for the dismissal of the appeal by majority decision, upholding the previous courts' decisions.
Harris v Flower and Sons	N/A	Yes	(1904) 91 LT 816	England and Wales	Cited in relation to the rule regarding the extension of the dominant tenement beyond the original grant.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[2007] 2 SLR 554	Singapore	Cited for granting the plaintiff the right to repair the servient tenement.
Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2009] 1 SLR 875	Singapore	Cited for allowing the defendant’s appeal and holding that the residents of Grange Heights would no longer have the right of way.
Arnold v National Westminster Bank Plc	House of Lords	Yes	[1991] 2 AC 93	United Kingdom	Cited to justify the reversal of the 2005 judgment.
Regina v Bow Street Metropolitan Stipendiary Magistrate and Others, Ex parte Pinochet Ugarte (No.2)	House of Lords	Yes	[2000] AC 119	United Kingdom	Cited for the principle that the House of Lords has jurisdiction to set aside its previous order if that order had been improperly made.
Broome v Cassell & Co Ltd (No 2)	House of Lords	Yes	[1972] AC 1136	United Kingdom	Cited for varying an order for costs already made by the House in circumstances where the parties had not had a fair opportunity to address argument on the point.
Taylor v Lawrence	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2003] QB 528	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the Court of Appeal has an inherent power to control its own procedure so as to prevent it being used to achieve injustice.
Bremer Vulkan Schiffbau und Maschinenfabrik v South India Shipping Corpn Ltd	House of Lords	Yes	[1981] AC 909	United Kingdom	Cited for the inherent power of a High Court to strike out a claim for want of prosecution.
Godfrey Gerald QC v UBS AG	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2004] 4 SLR 411	Singapore	Cited for the court’s inherent power after it becomes functus officio to clarify the terms of the order and/or to give consequential directions.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Supreme Court of Judicature Act (Cap 322)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Right of way
Servient tenement
Res judicata
Finality principle
Justice principle
Egregious error
Breach of natural justice
Inherent jurisdiction
Reconstitution of court
Issue estoppel

15.2 Keywords

Right of way
Court of Appeal
Res judicata
Singapore
Civil procedure

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Res Judicata	80
Civil Practice	75
Property Law	40
Administrative Law	30
Contract Law	20

16. Subjects

Civil Procedure
Property Law
Constitutional Law