Muthukumaran v Kwong: Implied Easement of Right of Way Over Staircase Under Land Titles Act

In Muthukumaran s/o Varthan and another v Kwong Kai Chung and others, the High Court of Singapore dismissed Originating Summons No 896 of 2013, concerning a claim by Muthukumaran s/o Varthan and Indira d/o Srinivasa Naidu for an implied easement of a right of way over the staircase of an adjacent shop-house owned by Kwong Kai Chung and Kwong Wing Yen Catherine, with Madras Investment Pte Ltd as the third defendant. The court, presided over by Lee Kim Shin JC, held on 15 October 2014, that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the alleged easement was set apart or appropriated on the subdivision plan as required by s 99(1A) of the Land Titles Act. The plaintiffs' claim for an easement and related remedies was therefore dismissed.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court

1.2 Outcome

Originating Summons dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

The High Court dismissed a claim for an implied easement of right of way over a staircase under the Land Titles Act, requiring an approved subdivision plan.

1.7 Decision Date

14 October 2014

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
MUTHUKUMARAN S/O VARTHAN	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	George Pereira of Pereira & Tan LLC
INDIRA D/O SRINIVASA NAIDU	Plaintiff	Individual	Claim Dismissed	Lost	George Pereira of Pereira & Tan LLC
KWONG KAI CHUNG	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Adrian Wong of Rajah & Tann LLP Yan Yijun of Rajah & Tann LLP
KWONG WING YEN CATHERINE	Defendant	Individual	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Adrian Wong of Rajah & Tann LLP Yan Yijun of Rajah & Tann LLP
MADRAS INVESTMENT PTE LTD	Defendant	Corporation	Judgment for Defendant	Won	Choo Yean Lin of Tan Lee & Partners Krishnasamy Siva Sambo of Tan Lee & Partners

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Lee Kim Shin	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
George Pereira	Pereira & Tan LLC
Adrian Wong	Rajah & Tann LLP
Yan Yijun	Rajah & Tann LLP
Choo Yean Lin	Tan Lee & Partners
Krishnasamy Siva Sambo	Tan Lee & Partners

4. Facts

Plaintiffs owned No 21 Madras Street, a two-story shop-house.
First and Second Defendants owned No 23 Madras Street, adjacent to No 21.
Third Defendant previously owned No 23 from 1995 to 2010.
No 21 did not have a staircase built within the unit.
Plaintiffs claimed an implied easement of a right of way over the staircase in No 23.
Plaintiffs were denied access to the No 23 Staircase and the opening between No 21A and No 23A was boarded up.
The court found that the plaintiffs failed to produce the approved subdivision plan in evidence.

5. Formal Citations

Muthukumaran s/o Varthan and another v Kwong Kai Chung and others, Originating Summons No 896 of 2013, [2014] SGHC 204

6. Timeline

Date	Event
1993-08-27	Tender concluded with the Singapore Government
1993-11-22	Third Defendant purchased the Properties
1995-05-04	Plans approved by the Building and Construction Authority
1995-06-20	Plans approved by the Urban Redevelopment Authority
2004-06-03	Plaintiffs purchased No 21 from the Third Defendant
2004-11-10	Transfer of No 21 to the Plaintiffs was registered
2010-02-01	Plaintiffs' tenant moved out
2010-04-19	First and Second Defendants purchased No 23 from the Third Defendant
2010-07-16	Transfer of No 23 to the First and Second Defendants was registered
2010-08-05	First Plaintiff wrote to the Civil Defence
2010-08-11	Civil Defence carried out an inspection at No 23
2010-08-13	Civil Defence wrote to the First and Second Defendants
2011-03-25	Civil Defence approved the First and Second Defendants’ application for the boarding up of the opening between No 21A and No 23A
2011-04-12	URA wrote to the First and Second Defendants
2013-08-02	First and Second Defendants received a letter from the Plaintiffs’ solicitors
2013-10-08	Plaintiffs filed OS 896 against all three Defendants
2013-12-10	Plaintiffs’ solicitors wrote to the URA
2013-12-16	URA replied to Plaintiffs' solicitors
2014-06-30	OS 896 dismissed
2014-10-15	Decision Date

7. Legal Issues

Implied Easement of Right of Way
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiffs were not entitled to an implied easement of a right of way over the No 23 Staircase.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Failure to establish easement on subdivision plan
  - Interpretation of 'appropriated or set apart'
  - Necessity for reasonable enjoyment of the lot

8. Remedies Sought

Declaration of Easement
Injunction Restraining Interference
Damages
Order to Reinstate Opening

9. Cause of Actions

Claim for Implied Easement
Injunction
Damages

10. Practice Areas

Real Estate Law
Property Law
Civil Litigation

11. Industries

Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
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 clarify that s 99(1) of the LTA did not require both development and subdivision approvals to be given simultaneously.
Cheng-Wong Mei Ling Theresa v Oei Hong Leong	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2006] 2 SLR(R) 637	Singapore	Cited to reiterate that there was no need to show a link between subdivision approval and development approval before an easement could be implied under s 99(1).
Andrew John Hanam v Lam Vui and another	High Court	Yes	[2013] 4 SLR 554	Singapore	Cited for the view that the subdivision plan must be tendered in evidence if there is to be any reliance on an easement that is “appropriated or set apart” on the subdivision plan.
Wheeldon v Burrows	Court of Appeal	Yes	(1879) 12 Ch D 31	England	Cited for the rule regarding implied easements, but ultimately distinguished as not helpful in interpreting s 99(1A) of the LTA.
Wheeler and Another v JJ Saunders Ltd and Another	English Court of Appeal	Yes	[1996] 1 Ch 19	England	Cited for the application of the rule in Wheeldon, but ultimately distinguished as not helpful in interpreting s 99(1A) of the LTA.
Moncrieff and Another v Jamieson and Others	N/A	Yes	[2007] 1 WLR 2620	N/A	Cited for the importance of focusing on the requirements of reasonableness and necessity, but ultimately distinguished as not helpful in interpreting s 99(1A) of the LTA.
Body Corporate No 413424R v Peter James Sheppard & Anor	Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria	Yes	[2008] VSCA 118	Australia	Cited for the interpretation of the phrase “necessary for the reasonable use and enjoyment of the lot” in s 12(2)(e) of the ASA, but ultimately distinguished as not helpful in interpreting s 99(1A) of the LTA.
Boglari v Steiner School and Kindergarten	Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria	Yes	[2007] VSCA 58	Australia	Cited for the interpretation of the phrase “necessary for the reasonable enjoyment of the lot” contained in s 98 of the TLA.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Planning Act (Cap 232, 1998 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Implied Easement
Right of Way
Subdivision Plan
Land Titles Act
Shop-house
Reasonable Enjoyment
Appropriated or Set Apart

15.2 Keywords

easement
land titles act
right of way
staircase
shop-house
singapore
property law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Easements	95
Land Law	90
Property Law	90

16. Subjects

Real Property
Land Law
Easements