Hanam v Lam: Easement Dispute over Party Wall Leakage at Thomson Green
In Andrew John Hanam v Lam Vui, the High Court of Singapore addressed a dispute concerning water leakage between two semi-detached properties at Thomson Green. Andrew John Hanam, the plaintiff, sought access to Lam Vui's property to inspect and repair a party wall and an extended side wall, claiming an implied easement under the Land Titles Act. The court, presided over by Justice Belinda Ang Saw Ean, dismissed Hanam's originating summons, holding that the express easements registered prior to 1994 precluded the implication of further easements under Section 99 of the Land Titles Act. The court found that the plaintiff's application was misconceived.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Originating Summons dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
A property owner (Hanam) sought access to a neighbor's property (Lam) to repair a party wall. The court dismissed the application, finding no implied easement.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew John Hanam | Plaintiff | Individual | Claim Dismissed | Lost | Andrew Hanam |
| Lam Vui | Defendant | Individual | Judgment for Defendant | Won | Bernard Sahagar s/o Tanggavelu |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Belinda Ang Saw Ean | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Andrew Hanam | Andrew LLC |
| Bernard Sahagar s/o Tanggavelu | Lee Bon Leong & Co. |
4. Facts
- Plaintiff owned a three-story semi-detached house (No 4 Thomson Green).
- Defendants owned a two-story semi-detached house (No 2 Thomson Green) adjacent to the plaintiff's property.
- A two-story party wall divided the two properties.
- Plaintiff experienced leaks in his property and believed the source was the party wall or the extended side wall.
- Defendants refused the plaintiff's contractor access to their property to inspect the party wall.
- Express easements for party wall rights were registered in 1974.
- The subdivision approval for the Thomson Hills estate was given before 1 March 1994.
5. Formal Citations
- Andrew John Hanam v Lam Vui and another, Originating Summons No 92 of 2013, [2013] SGHC 159
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Plaintiff experienced leaks in his home. | |
| Plaintiff wrote to the first defendant seeking access for repairs. | |
| Plaintiff rejected the conditions imposed by the first defendant and demanded access. | |
| Plaintiff wrote to the first defendant to request permission to access No 2. | |
| Plaintiff offered to provide a written undertaking. | |
| Defendants' solicitors requested a building engineer's report. | |
| Plaintiff commenced Originating Summons No 92. | |
| Defendants offered access to a registered building surveyor/engineer. | |
| Originating Summons No 92 dismissed. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- Implied Easement
- Outcome: The court held that no implied easement existed under Section 99 of the Land Titles Act because express easements were already registered before 1994 and the requirements of Section 99(7) were met.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Necessity for reasonable enjoyment of property
- Scope of easement for party wall purposes
- Party Wall Rights
- Outcome: The court determined that the existing party wall easements were limited to rights of support and did not extend to a right of access for inspection or repair from the neighboring property.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Scope of party wall easements
- Rights of access for inspection and repair
8. Remedies Sought
- Access to neighboring property for inspection of party wall
- Access to neighboring property for tests to determine source of leakage
- Access to neighboring property to carry out repairs to party wall
- Access to neighboring property to carry out repairs to extended side wall
9. Cause of Actions
- Claim for access to property for inspection and repair
- Assertion of implied easement
10. Practice Areas
- Real Estate Litigation
- Property Disputes
11. Industries
- Real Estate
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| K Mahunaran v Osmond Chiang Siang Kuan | High Court of Malaya | Yes | [1996] 5 MLJ 293 | Malaysia | Cited to illustrate the scope of an easement of support and to demonstrate that demolishing and extending a party wall without consent constitutes trespass. |
| Boglari v Steiner School & Kindergarten | Supreme Court of Victoria Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] VSCA 58 | Victoria, Australia | Cited to interpret the phrase 'as may be necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the allotment or the lot' in the context of implied easements, holding that it determines how easements are exercised, not to confer new rights. |
| Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 549 v Chew Eu Hock Construction Co Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 934 | Singapore | Cited to support the proposition that Section 98 of the Land Titles Act should be considered when construing Section 99 due to the overlap between the two sections. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) s 99 | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 276, 1970 Rev Ed) s 88 | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act s 98 | Singapore |
| Land Titles (Strata) Act (Cap 158, 2009 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Party wall
- Easement
- Implied easement
- Registered easement
- Right of support
- Land Titles Act
- Thomson Green
- Subdivision approval
- Reasonable enjoyment
- Ancillary rights
15.2 Keywords
- Easement
- Party Wall
- Land Titles Act
- Property Dispute
- Singapore Law
16. Subjects
- Property Law
- Real Estate
- Easements
17. Areas of Law
- Easements
- Property Law
- Land Law