Aviation Hub Pte Ltd v Danial Higgins: Trespass, Contractual Licence, and Hangarage Fees Dispute
In Aviation Hub Pte Ltd v Danial Higgins, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore heard an application by Aviation Hub for a declaration to remove an aircraft owned by Danial Higgins from its property, along with claims for unpaid hangarage fees and damages for trespass. The court, presided over by Goh Yihan JC, allowed the plaintiff to remove the aircraft, awarded the plaintiff $234,900 in hangarage fees, and granted damages for trespass. The court found that the defendant's licence to park the aircraft had been revoked and that his continued presence on the property constituted trespass.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Prayer (a) allowed in part, and prayers (b) and (c) allowed in full.
1.3 Case Type
Civil
1.4 Judgment Type
Ex Tempore Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Aviation Hub sues Danial Higgins for trespass and unpaid hangarage fees. The court allowed the removal of the aircraft and awarded fees and damages.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aviation Hub Pte Ltd | Plaintiff | Corporation | Prayer (a) allowed in part | Partial | |
| Danial Higgins | Defendant | Individual | Aircraft can be removed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Goh Yihan | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Wayne Yeo | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Yeap Poh Leong Andre | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- The plaintiff, Aviation Hub Pte Ltd, acquired the Property from MAJ Aviation Pte Ltd on 1 September 2021.
- The defendant, Danial Higgins, is the owner of the Aircraft at all the relevant times.
- On 15 May 2014, MAJ entered into a contract with the defendant to provide annual aircraft servicing and hangarage.
- The terms of the Contract were recorded in an exchange of emails between MAJ and the defendant on 15 May 2014.
- Pursuant to the Contract, MAJ agreed to provide long-term hangar parking services for the Aircraft at $2,900 per month.
- In December 2014, the defendant defaulted on his obligation to pay the Hangarage Fees.
- On 24 January 2022, MAJ assigned the Hangarage Fees to the plaintiff.
5. Formal Citations
- Aviation Hub Pte Ltd v Higgins, Daniel, Originating Summons No 326 of 2022, [2022] SGHC 281
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| MAJ Aviation Pte Ltd entered into a contract with the defendant for aircraft servicing and hangarage. | |
| The defendant defaulted on his obligation to pay the Hangarage Fees. | |
| MAJ Aviation Pte Ltd sought payment of the outstanding Hangarage Fees. | |
| MAJ Aviation Pte Ltd instructed its solicitors to demand the removal of the Aircraft from the Property. | |
| The defendant alleged he could not remove the Aircraft due to damage attributable to a MAJ employee. | |
| MAJ Aviation Pte Ltd informed the defendant that the receiver had procured a buyer for the Property and the Aircraft must be removed by 3 August 2021. | |
| The defendant failed to remove the Aircraft. | |
| Aviation Hub Pte Ltd acquired the Property from MAJ Aviation Pte Ltd. | |
| Aviation Hub Pte Ltd demanded the defendant remove the Aircraft. | |
| Aviation Hub Pte Ltd instructed its solicitors to inform the defendant that his continued refusal to remove the Aircraft amounted to continuing trespass. | |
| Deadline for the defendant to remove the Aircraft, failing which the plaintiff would take steps to remove or demolish it. | |
| MAJ Aviation Pte Ltd assigned the Hangarage Fees to Aviation Hub Pte Ltd. | |
| Aviation Hub Pte Ltd instructed its solicitors to demand payment of $234,900. | |
| Aviation Hub Pte Ltd commenced the present application. | |
| Judgment was delivered. | |
| Date of judgment. |
7. Legal Issues
- Trespass
- Outcome: The court found that the defendant had been in trespass of the Property from 1 September 2021, which was when the Licence was revoked by MAJ’s sale of the Property to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Revocation of Licence
- Interference with Land
- Related Cases:
- [2000] 1 SLR(R) 891
- [2001] 1 SLR(R) 167
- Contractual Licence
- Outcome: The court held that the Licence was revoked on 1 September 2021 once MAJ successfully sold the Property to the plaintiff.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Revocability of Licence
- Binding effect on third parties
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 1 SLR(R) 592
- [1952] 1 KB 290
- [1972] Ch 359
- [1989] Ch 1
- [2015] 4 SLR 283
- [2018] 4 SLR 931
- Damages for Trespass
- Outcome: The court granted order in terms in respect of prayer (c) with damages to be calculated at a monthly rate of $2,900 per month from 1 September 2021 until such date as the Aircraft is removed from the Property.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Measure of Damages
- User Damages
- Related Cases:
- [2016] 1 SLR 1295
8. Remedies Sought
- Declaration to remove, destroy, or dispose of the Aircraft
- Payment of $234,900 in hangarage fees
- Damages to be assessed
9. Cause of Actions
- Trespass
- Breach of Contract
10. Practice Areas
- Commercial Litigation
- Property Law
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
11. Industries
- Aviation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im | High Court | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR(R) 891 | Singapore | Cited to establish that a licence may be a complete defence to trespass. |
| Tan Hin Leong v Lee Teck Im | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR(R) 167 | Singapore | Cited to establish that the scope and revocability of a contractual licence is determined by construing the terms of the contract. |
| Neo Hock Pheng and others v Teo Siew Peng and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR(R) 592 | Singapore | Cited to support the proposition that the sale of property revokes a licence. |
| Errington v Errington | N/A | Yes | [1952] 1 KB 290 | England | Cited as an example of Lord Denning MR's view that a contractual licence could bind third parties with notice. |
| Binions v Evans | N/A | Yes | [1972] Ch 359 | England | Cited as an example of Lord Denning MR's view that a contractual licence could bind third parties with notice. |
| Ashburn Anstalt v Arnold | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1989] Ch 1 | England | Cited to disapprove the view that a contractual licence creates an interest in land and to establish that a constructive trust is required to bind third parties. |
| UJT v UJR and another matter | High Court | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 931 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a contractual licence cannot generally bind third parties unless the transferee's conscience was affected and a constructive trust should be imposed. |
| Guy Neale and others v Ku De Ta SG Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2015] 4 SLR 283 | Singapore | Cited for endorsing the position taken in Ashburn Anstalt that a contractual licence cannot generally bind third parties unless the transferee's conscience was affected. |
| Lai Kong Jin t/a Porya Chai Chinese Arts and Dynasty Crafts Co v Siah Yock Suan | High Court | Yes | [1992] SGHC 195 | Singapore | Cited for the proposition that a landowner has a right of self-help, subject to limitations, but distinguished regarding the destruction of chattels. |
| Arthur and another v Anker and another | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] QB 564 | England | Cited to show that self-help remedies do not extend to the destruction of property. |
| McPhail v Persons Unknown | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1973] Ch 447 | England | Cited for the common law self-help remedy that a landowner has to evict a trespasser using ordinary force. |
| Redland Bricks Ltd v Morris and another | House of Lords | Yes | [1970] AC 652 | England | Cited to establish that an injunction is not as of right on the establishment of trespass. |
| Tay Tuan Kiat v Pritnam Singh Brar | N/A | Yes | [1985-1986] SLR(R) 763 | Singapore | Cited to support the legal position that a mandatory injunction is always at the discretion of the court. |
| Paul Patrick Baragwanath and another v Republic of Singapore Yacht Club | High Court | Yes | [2016] 1 SLR 1295 | Singapore | Cited for the measure of damages for trespass can be based on the reasonable hire of the property in question. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Order 7, Rule 2 of the Rules of Court |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Aircraft
- Hangarage Fees
- Contractual Licence
- Trespass
- Property
- Hangar
- Self-help remedies
15.2 Keywords
- Trespass
- Contractual Licence
- Hangarage Fees
- Aircraft
- Singapore
- Aviation Hub
- Danial Higgins
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Trespass | 90 |
| Injunctions | 85 |
| Civil Practice | 75 |
| Torts | 70 |
| Contractual Licence | 70 |
| Land Law | 65 |
| Property Law | 60 |
| Breach of Contract | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Contract Law
- Tort Law
- Property Law
- Civil Procedure
- Injunctions