Eng Yuen Yee v Grandfort Builders: Construction Torts & Neighboring Properties Dispute
In Eng Yuen Yee @ Chua Lay Ho (sole executrix of the estate of Chan Poh Choo, deceased) v Grandfort Builders Pte Ltd, Chan Wai Yuen, and Teo Poh Choo, the plaintiff, Eng Yuen Yee, sought summary judgment against the 2nd and 3rd defendants for damages to the deceased's property, alleging a breach of a non-delegable duty of support. The High Court of Singapore, presided over by Assistant Registrar Zeslene Mao, declined to enter summary judgment, granting the 2nd and 3rd defendants unconditional leave to defend. The court found that the plaintiff's claim did not fall within the established principles of right of support and that the recognition of a broad non-delegable duty was not supported by current authorities.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
The 2nd and 3rd defendants were granted unconditional leave to defend.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Summary judgment application concerning damage to a terrace house due to reconstruction on adjacent land. The court declined to enter summary judgment.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eng Yuen Yee @ Chua Lay Ho (sole executrix of the estate of Chan Poh Choo, deceased) | Plaintiff | Individual | Unconditional leave to defend granted to the 2nd and 3rd defendants | Lost | |
| Grandfort Builders Pte Ltd | Defendant | Corporation | No summary judgment entered | Neutral | |
| Chan Wai Yuen | Defendant | Individual | Unconditional leave to defend granted | Won | |
| Teo Poh Choo | Defendant | Individual | Unconditional leave to defend granted | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Zeslene Mao | Assistant Registrar | Yes |
4. Counsels
4. Facts
- The plaintiff's late mother owned a terrace house adjacent to the 2nd and 3rd defendants' property.
- The 2nd and 3rd defendants undertook major reconstruction to their home in 2014, employing the 1st defendant.
- During construction, defects, such as large cracks, appeared on the deceased’s property.
- SYT Consultants opined that the damage was caused by the excessive differential settlement and tilting of the 2nd and 3rd defendants’ property.
- The plaintiff commenced an action against the defendants, alleging breach of a non-delegable duty not to interfere with the deceased’s right of support.
- The plaintiff applied for interlocutory summary judgment against the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
5. Formal Citations
- Eng Yuen Yee (sole executrix of the estate of Chan Poh Choo, deceased) v Grandfort Builders Pte Ltd and others (Wu Ruixin and another, third parties), Suit No 131 of 2017(Summons No 4593 of 2017), [2018] SGHCR 01
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Hearing held | |
| Hearing held | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Breach of Right of Support
- Outcome: The court held that the plaintiff's case did not fall within the established principles of right of support.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 2 SLR(R) 614
- Non-Delegable Duty
- Outcome: The court declined to recognize a broad non-delegable duty on the part of landowners not to cause damage to their neighbor’s property.
- Category: Substantive
- Summary Judgment
- Outcome: The court declined to enter summary judgment against the 2nd and 3rd defendants.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Damages to be assessed
9. Cause of Actions
- Breach of non-delegable duty
- Nuisance
10. Practice Areas
- Construction Law
- Civil Litigation
11. Industries
- Construction
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Xpress Print Pte Ltd v Monocrafts Pte Ltd and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR(R) 614 | Singapore | Relied upon by the plaintiff for the principle that a landowner has a right to support in respect of his buildings by neighboring land, which translates into a correlating duty on the part of the adjoining landowner not to cause damage to his neighbor’s land. |
| Charles Dalton v Henry Angus | House of Lords | Yes | (1880–1881) 6 AC 740 | England | Discussed in relation to the right of lateral support from adjoining land and the prescriptive period of 20 years' uninterrupted enjoyment. |
| Lee Quee Siew v Lim Hock Siew | Court of Appeal of the Strait Settlements | Yes | (1895–1896) 3 SSLR 80 | Singapore | Followed the proposition in Dalton v Angus that a landowner may excavate his land with impunity prior to the prescriptive period of 20 years. |
| Afro-Asia Shipping Company (Pte) Ltd v Da Zhong Investment Pte Ltd and others | High Court | Yes | [2004] 2 SLR(R) 117 | Singapore | Applied the principle in Xpress Print that a landowner has a duty not to cause damage to his neighbour’s land by excavating or otherwise removing his land without first securing additional means of support. |
| Bower v Peate | Queen's Bench Division | Yes | (1875–1876) 1 QBD 321 | England | Relied upon by the Court of Appeal in Xpress Print, holding that the duty on the landowner could not be disposed of by delegation. |
| George Martin Hughes v John Percival | House of Lords | Yes | (1883) 8 App Cas 443 | England | Cited as an example where the principle in Bower v Peate had been applied in a case that did not involve excavation works. |
| Ng Huat Seng and another v Munib Mohammad Madni and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 1074 | Singapore | Demonstrates that a landowner who has had negligent construction works carried out on his or her land or property by an independent third-party which has caused damage to his neighbour’s property is not ipso facto liable to his neighbour for the damage caused. |
| MCST Plan No 3322 v Tiong Aik Construction Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 521 | Singapore | Set out a two-stage framework for determining whether a non-delegable duty would arise on a given set of facts. |
| Woodland v Swimming Teachers Association | Supreme Court | Yes | [2014] AC 537 | England and Wales | Outlined five defining features for determining whether a non-delegable duty would arise on a given set of facts. |
| Honeywill and Stein Ltd v Larkin Brothers (London’s Commercial Photographers) Ltd | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1934] 1 KB 191 | England | Articulated an exception to the general rule that an employer was not liable for the acts of an independent contractor in the case of ultra-hazardous acts. |
| Biffa Waste Services Ltd v Maschinenfabrick Ernst Hese GmbH | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [2009] 3 WLR 324 | England | Limited the doctrine of ultra-hazardous acts to the limited circumstance where an activity posed a material risk of causing exceptionally serious harm to others even if it was carried out with reasonable care. |
| Obegi Melissa and others v Vestwin Trading Pte Ltd and another | N/A | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 540 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where novel legal issues are raised and more evidence would be needed to satisfactorily determine those issues which require a full examination of all the relevant facts, the matter ought to proceed to trial rather than be summarily determined. |
| Spandeck Engineering (S) Pte Ltd v Defence Science & Technology Agency | N/A | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 100 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the law of negligence has gained coherence and prominence. |
| See Toh Siew Kee v Ho Ah Lam Ferrocement (Pte) Ltd and others | N/A | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 284 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the framework of negligence as set out in Spandeck ought to apply to claims that arose in the context of occupier’s liability. |
| Bonomi v Backhouse | N/A | Yes | Bonomi v Backhouse | N/A | Cited for the criticism of the Latin maxim sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| O 14 of the Rules of Court |
| O 14 r 3(1) of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Right of support
- Non-delegable duty
- Summary judgment
- Excavation
- Lateral support
- Nuisance
- Negligence
- Interlocutory judgment
- Reconstruction works
- Terrace house
15.2 Keywords
- construction
- tort
- nuisance
- right of support
- summary judgment
- negligence
- neighboring properties
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Construction Law | 75 |
| Neighbouring Properties | 65 |
| Torts | 60 |
| Property Law | 50 |
| Civil Procedure | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Construction Law
- Torts
- Civil Procedure
- Property Law