Wee Siew Bock v Chan Yuen Yee: Easement Rights, Abandonment, and Interference
The Court of Appeal of Singapore heard appeals by Wee Siew Bock and Chia Foong Lin against Chan Yuen Yee Alexia Eve regarding a dispute over easement rights. The Appellants claimed the Respondent's actions, including building a kerb wall and installing an auto-gate, interfered with their easement. The court dismissed both appeals, finding partial abandonment of the easement by the Appellants and no substantial interference with their reasonable enjoyment of the remaining easement.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
Court of Appeal1.2 Outcome
Both appeals dismissed with costs.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Dispute over easement rights between neighboring landowners. Court of Appeal clarifies easement law, addressing abandonment and interference issues. Appeals dismissed.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wee Siew Bock | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Deborah Barker, Spring Tan |
| Chia Foong Lin | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Deborah Barker, Spring Tan |
| Chan Yuen Yee Alexia Eve | Respondent | Individual | Appeal Upheld | Won | Vinodh Coomaraswamy, Edmund Eng Zixuan, Vincent Lim, Benjamin Ng |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| Andrew Phang Boon Leong | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
| V K Rajah | Justice of the Court of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Deborah Barker | Khattarwong LLP |
| Spring Tan | Khattarwong LLP |
| Vinodh Coomaraswamy | Shook Lin & Bok LLP |
| Edmund Eng Zixuan | Shook Lin & Bok LLP |
| Vincent Lim | Shook Lin & Bok LLP |
| Benjamin Ng | Shook Lin & Bok LLP |
4. Facts
- Appellants own No 22 Oei Tiong Ham Park since 2003; Respondent owns No 23 since 2005.
- Dispute concerns a registered easement granting a right of way over part of Respondent's land.
- Respondent planned to install an automatic gate; Appellants objected.
- Appellants wanted to lay utility pipes and shift their gate; Respondent objected.
- Respondent built a kerb wall; Appellants claimed it reduced vehicular swing space.
- Appellants claimed the auto-gate, parking, and children playing obstructed the easement.
- The driveway is the only access to the public road for both properties.
5. Formal Citations
- Wee Siew Bock and another v Chan Yuen Yee Alexia Eve and another appeal, Civil Appeals Nos 103 and 151 of 2011, [2012] SGCA 33
- Chia Foong Lin and another v Chan Yuen Yee Alexia Eve, , [2011] SGHC 261
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Boundaries of No 23 Oei Tiong Ham Park approved. | |
| Boundaries of No 22 Oei Tiong Ham Park approved. | |
| Easement transfer dated. | |
| Wee Siew Bock and Chia Foong Lin became registered proprietors of No 22 Oei Tiong Ham Park. | |
| Chan Yuen Yee Alexia Eve became registered proprietor of No 23 Oei Tiong Ham Park. | |
| Both parties commenced reconstruction works at their respective properties. | |
| Chan Yuen Yee Alexia Eve filed Originating Summons No 46 of 2011. | |
| Wee Siew Bock and Chia Foong Lin filed Originating Summons No 85 of 2011. | |
| Originating Summons No 85 of 2011 and Originating Summons No 46 of 2011 heard. | |
| Oral judgment delivered for Originating Summons No 85 of 2011 and Originating Summons No 46 of 2011. | |
| Chan Yuen Yee Alexia Eve commenced building the Kerb Wall. | |
| Kerb Wall completed. | |
| Wee Siew Bock and Chia Foong Lin filed Originating Summons No 350 of 2011. | |
| Wee Siew Bock and Chia Foong Lin filed Summons No 1971 of 2011. | |
| Wee Siew Bock and Chia Foong Lin appealed against the Judge’s decision (via Civil Appeal No 57 of 2011). | |
| Wee Siew Bock and Chia Foong Lin filed Originating Summons No 371 of 2011. | |
| Originating Summons No 350 of 2011 heard. | |
| Judgment given in favour of Chan Yuen Yee Alexia Eve in Originating Summons No 350 of 2011. | |
| Judgment reserved. |
7. Legal Issues
- Abandonment of Easement
- Outcome: The court found that the Appellants and their predecessors in title had abandoned the easement in respect of certain parts of the easement land.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Non-user of easement
- Acquiescence in acts inconsistent with easement
- Intention to abandon easement
- Related Cases:
- Crossley and Sons,Limited v Lightowler (1867) LR 2 Ch App 478
- Gotobed v Pridmore and Another (1970) 115 SJ 78
- Lian Kok Hong v Lee Choi Kheong and others [2010] 3 SLR 378
- Substantial Interference with Easement
- Outcome: The court found that the Respondent's actions did not substantially interfere with the Appellants' reasonable enjoyment of the easement.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Reasonable enjoyment of easement
- Extent of interference
- Balance between dominant and servient owner rights
- Related Cases:
- Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 [2009] 1 SLR(R) 875
- B&Q Plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Limited (2000) 81 P & CR 246
- Res Judicata
- Outcome: The court held that the issue of res judicata did not arise in CA 151.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Injunction to dismantle Kerb Wall
- Declaration of unobstructed access
- Injunction to prevent obstruction of Easement
9. Cause of Actions
- Interference with Easement Rights
- Nuisance
10. Practice Areas
- Real Estate Litigation
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Real Estate
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Chia Foong Lin and another v Chan Yuen Yee Alexia Eve | High Court | Yes | [2011] SGHC 261 | Singapore | The High Court decision being appealed from, providing the background and reasoning for the lower court's judgment. |
| Crossley and Sons,Limited v Lightowler | Court of Appeal in Chancery | Yes | Crossley and Sons,Limited v Lightowler (1867) LR 2 Ch App 478 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a long period of non-user may shift the evidential burden to the dominant owner to show intent to preserve easement rights. |
| John Baalman, The Singapore Torrens System: Being a Commentary on the Land Titles Ordinance, 1956 of the State of Singapore | N/A | Yes | John Baalman, The Singapore Torrens System: Being a Commentary on the Land Titles Ordinance, 1956 of the State of Singapore (The Government of the State of Singapore, 1961) | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the common law doctrine of abandonment continues to apply to easements over registered land. |
| Gotobed v Pridmore and Another | Court of Appeal | Yes | Gotobed v Pridmore and Another (1970) 115 SJ 78 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that abandonment of an easement requires clear conduct demonstrating a firm intention to abandon the right. |
| Cook v Mayor and Corporation of Bath | Court of Chancery | Yes | Cook v Mayor and Corporation of Bath (1868) LR 6 Eq 177 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that whether an act amounts to abandonment is a question of fact to be ascertained from the surrounding circumstances. |
| Frontfield Investment Holding (Pte) Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 938 and others | High Court | Yes | Frontfield Investment Holding (Pte) Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 938 and others [2001] 2 SLR(R) 410 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that permanent structures blocking access to a right of way can indicate abandonment. |
| Colin Sara, Boundaries and Easements | N/A | Yes | Colin Sara, Boundaries and Easements (Sweet & Maxwell, 5th Ed, 2011) | N/A | Cited for commentary on the Gotobed case regarding the permanence of structures in abandonment cases. |
| The Queen v Sarah Chorley and Another | Court of Queen's Bench | Yes | The Queen v Sarah Chorley and Another (1848) 12 QB 515; 116 ER 960 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that the length of non-user depends on the surrounding circumstances and that mere non-user is insufficient to establish abandonment. |
| Jonathan Gaunt QC & Justice Morgan, Gale on Easements | N/A | Yes | Jonathan Gaunt QC & Justice Morgan, Gale on Easements (Sweet & Maxwell, 18th Ed, 2008) | N/A | Cited for the principle that a shorter period of non-user can suffice for abandonment if there is an act clearly evidencing an intention to abandon. |
| Lian Kok Hong v Lee Choi Kheong and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | Lian Kok Hong v Lee Choi Kheong and others [2010] 3 SLR 378 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that a long period of acquiescence in the form of inaction can be sufficient to establish abandonment. |
| Swan v Sinclair | Chancery Division | Yes | Swan v Sinclair [1924] 1 Ch 254 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that courts may imply a presumption of release of an easement if circumstances indicate an intention not to resume usage. |
| Ward v Ward | Court of Exchequer | Yes | Ward v Ward (1852) 7 Exch 838; 155 ER 1189 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that non-user due to a more convenient mode of access may lead to a finding of abandonment. |
| Jones v Price | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | Jones v Price [1965] 2 QB 618 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an easement is a right to do an act or prevent an act, not a right to have something done. |
| Rance v Elvin and Another | County Court | Yes | Rance v Elvin and Another (1985) 50 P & CR 9 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that an easement requires no more than sufferance on the part of the servient owner. |
| Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 | Court of Appeal | Yes | Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 [2009] 1 SLR(R) 875 | Singapore | Cited for affirming the 'substantial interference' test for wrongful interference with an easement. |
| Kevin Gray & Susan Francis Gray, Elements of Land Law | N/A | Yes | Kevin Gray & Susan Francis Gray, Elements of Land Law (Oxford University Press, 5th Ed, 2009) | N/A | Cited for the 'substantial interference' test and the ethic of 'reasonableness between neighbours' in easement law. |
| B&Q Plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Limited | Court of Appeal | Yes | B&Q Plc v Liverpool and Lancashire Properties Limited (2000) 81 P & CR 246 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that 'substantial interference' turns on whether the interference renders the use of the easement materially less convenient. |
| West v Sharp | Court of Appeal | Yes | West v Sharp [2000] 79 P & CR 327 | England and Wales | Cited for the principle that a dominant owner can only object to activities that substantially interfere with the exercise of the defined right. |
| John Leybourn Goddard, A Treatise on The Law of Easements | N/A | Yes | John Leybourn Goddard, A Treatise on The Law of Easements (Stevens and Sons Limited, 8th Ed, 1921) | N/A | Cited for the principle that a right of way does not generally give the dominant owner a right that the road shall in no respect be altered. |
| Nicol v. Beaumont | N/A | Yes | Nicol v. Beaumont [(1883) 53 LJ Ch 853; 50 LT 112 | N/A | Cited as an example of a case where the general rule regarding alterations to a right of way was altered by circumstances. |
| Hutton v Hamboro | N/A | Yes | Hutton v Hamboro [(1860) 2 F & F 218] | N/A | Cited for the principle that the question is whether practically and substantially the right of way can be exercised as conveniently as before. |
| Richard Frank Horton Berryman and Anor v Robert Sonnenschein and Anor | Supreme Court of New South Wales | Yes | Richard Frank Horton Berryman and Anor v Robert Sonnenschein and Anor [2008] NSWSC 213 | Australia | Cited for the principle that an ordinary right of way does not automatically confer the right to park or turn vehicles on the easement land. |
| Lim Hong Seng v East Coast Medicare Centre Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | Lim Hong Seng v East Coast Medicare Centre Pte Ltd [1994] 3 SLR(R) 680 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an easement for access does not allow parking on the driveway. |
| Sunset Properties Pty Ltd v Johnston | N/A | Yes | Sunset Properties Pty Ltd v Johnston (1975) 3 BPR 9185 | N/A | Cited for the test of whether a gate is 'locked against enjoyment' in cases of interference with an easement. |
| Cold Storage Singapore (1983) Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Chancery Court and others | High Court | Yes | Cold Storage Singapore (1983) Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Chancery Court and others [1989] 2 SLR(R) 180 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the test for derogation from the grant of an easement is whether there is substantial interference with the dominant owner’s reasonable use of the easement. |
| Cold Storage Singapore (1983) Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Chancery Court and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | Cold Storage Singapore (1983) Pte Ltd v Management Corporation of Chancery Court and others [1991] 2 SLR(R) 992 | Singapore | Cited for reiterating the principle that the test for derogation from the grant of an easement is whether there is substantial interference with the dominant owner’s reasonable use of the easement. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed), s 106 | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Easement
- Right of Way
- Dominant Tenement
- Servient Tenement
- Abandonment
- Substantial Interference
- Reasonable Enjoyment
- Kerb Wall
- Auto-Gate
- Acquiescence
15.2 Keywords
- easement
- right of way
- land dispute
- abandonment
- interference
- Singapore
- property law
16. Subjects
- Property Law
- Easements
- Land Law
17. Areas of Law
- Easement Law
- Property Law
- Civil Procedure