Huber’s Pte Ltd v Hu Lee Impex Pte Ltd: Court-Ordered Easements, Land Titles Act, Property Redevelopment

In Huber’s Pte Ltd v Hu Lee Impex Pte Ltd, the High Court of Singapore granted Huber’s Pte Ltd's application for temporary court-ordered easements over Hu Lee Impex Pte Ltd’s premises to facilitate the redevelopment of Huber’s property. The court, presided over by Judicial Commissioner Alex Wong Li Kok, allowed the application, ordering that Hu Lee Impex Pte Ltd be granted broad liberty to apply for compensation and to resolve any operational issues during the construction period. The primary legal issue was whether the easements were reasonably necessary for the effective use or development of Huber’s land under Section 97A of the Land Titles Act.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Application Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Huber's sought temporary easements over Hu Lee Impex's land for redevelopment. The court allowed the application, ordering compensation and operational issue resolution.

1.7 Decision Date

5 September 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Huber’s Pte Ltd	Applicant	Corporation	Application Allowed	Won	Joseph Tay Weiwen of Shook Lin & Bok LLP Tan Wei Sze of Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Hu Lee Impex Pte Ltd	Respondent	Corporation	Application Allowed	Lost	Wong Tze Roy of Goh JP & Wong LLC Soon Wei Song of Goh JP & Wong LLC

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Wong Li Kok, Alex	Judicial Commissioner	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Joseph Tay Weiwen	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Tan Wei Sze	Shook Lin & Bok LLP
Wong Tze Roy	Goh JP & Wong LLC
Soon Wei Song	Goh JP & Wong LLC

4. Facts

Huber’s sought easements over Hu Lee Impex’s land to redevelop its own premises.
The redevelopment involved demolishing a boundary wall close to Hu Lee Impex’s property.
Hu Lee Impex raised concerns about safety and business disruptions due to the demolition.
Huber’s obtained approvals from JTC and BCA for the redevelopment and demolition.
Huber’s proposed measures to mitigate the impact on Hu Lee Impex’s business.
Hu Lee Impex rejected Huber’s proposals, seeking guarantees and a detailed demolition strategy.
The easements sought were temporary, for 60 days, to facilitate construction.

5. Formal Citations

Huber’s Pte Ltd v Hu Lee Impex Pte Ltd, Originating Application No 1130 of 2023, [2024] SGHC 230

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2022-09-23	Emails exchanged regarding demolition of Boundary Wall and need for access.
2022-09-28	Emails exchanged regarding demolition of Boundary Wall and need for access.
2023-01-30	Meeting where Respondent suggested a setback for the new wall.
2023-02-17	Applicant sent slides detailing altered redevelopment plan.
2023-02-18	Respondent explained erecting scaffolding from the ground is a no-go.
2023-04-14	JTC approved the Intended Redevelopment.
2023-04-20	BCA approved demolition of Existing Structure.
2023-05-09	Demolition permit issued by BCA.
2023-05-19	Respondent reiterated concerns about demolition works.
2023-06-13	Applicant sought to reassure Respondent and offered an indemnity agreement.
2023-06-30	Respondent requested a banker’s guarantee and a comprehensive demolition strategy.
2023-07-19	Applicant offered insurance policy and monetary compensation.
2023-08-10	Applicant provided further documents to the Respondent.
2023-11-02	Applicant commenced application.
2024-07-01	Hearing
2024-07-11	Hearing
2024-07-18	Hearing
2024-09-06	Judgment issued

7. Legal Issues

Creation of Easements
- Outcome: The court held that the requirements for creating an easement under Section 97A of the Land Titles Act were met.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Reasonable necessity for effective use or development of land
  - Adequacy of compensation for burdened land proprietor
  - Reasonable attempts to obtain easement directly
- Related Cases:
  - 117 York Street Pty Ltd v Proprietors of Strata Plan No 6123 (1998) 43 NSWLR 504
  - Moorebank Recyclers Pte Ltd v. Tanlan Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 445
  - Rainbowforce Pty Ltd v Skyton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 2
Public Interest
- Outcome: The court found that the Intended Redevelopment was not inconsistent with public interest.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - Shi v ABI-K Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 293
  - McGrath v Mestousis [2017] NSWSC 995
  - Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd v Pacific Rover Pte Ltd [2009] 4 SLR(R) 951
  - Botanica Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2040 [2012] 3 SLR 476
Adequacy of Compensation
- Outcome: The court determined that the Respondent could be adequately compensated for any losses or disadvantages arising from the easements.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - Rainbowforce Pty Ltd v Skyton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 2
  - Khattar v Wiese [2005] NSWSC 1014
  - Tregoyd Gardens Pty Ltd v Jervis (1997) 8 BPR 15,845
  - Tiananmen KTV (2013) Pte Ltd and others v Furama Pte Ltd [2015] 3 SLR 433
Reasonable Attempts to Obtain Easement
- Outcome: The court was satisfied that all reasonable attempts had been made by the Applicant to obtain the Easements directly from the Respondent.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - Rainbowforce Pty Ltd v Skyton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 2
  - Coles Myer NSW Ltd v Dymocks Book Arcade Ltd (1996) 7 BPR 14,638
  - Hanny v Lewis (1998) 9 BPR 16,205

8. Remedies Sought

Temporary Court-Ordered Easements

9. Cause of Actions

Application for Court-Ordered Easement

10. Practice Areas

Real Estate Law
Construction Litigation

11. Industries

Construction
Food and Beverage

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
117 York Street Pty Ltd v Proprietors of Strata Plan No 6123	New South Wales Court	Yes	117 York Street Pty Ltd v Proprietors of Strata Plan No 6123 (1998) 43 NSWLR 504	New South Wales	Cited for the definition of 'reasonably necessary' in the context of easements.
Moorebank Recyclers Pte Ltd v Tanlan Pty Ltd	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	Moorebank Recyclers Pte Ltd v. Tanlan Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 445	New South Wales	Cited for the principles on reasonable necessity and consideration of alternative methods for development.
Rainbowforce Pty Ltd v Skyton Holdings Pty Ltd	New South Wales Land and Environment Court	Yes	Rainbowforce Pty Ltd v Skyton Holdings Pty Ltd [2010] NSWLEC 2	New South Wales	Cited for the principle that substantial preferability is not a necessary precondition for finding reasonable necessity.
Shi v ABI-K Pty Ltd	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	Shi v ABI-K Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 293	New South Wales	Cited for the principle that planning approval places an evidential burden on the servient tenement owner to demonstrate unreasonableness.
Woodland v Manly Municipal Council	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	Woodland v Manly Municipal Council [2003] NSWSC 392	New South Wales	Cited for the warning against creating a 'gloss' over the statute and distracting from the objective of efficient land use.
Blulock Pty Ltd v Majic	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	Blulock Pty Ltd v Majic [2001] NSWSC 1063	New South Wales	Cited to illustrate that detailed evidence on alternative plans generally need not be adduced for the court to exercise its discretion in determining whether to grant an easement.
McGrath v Mestousis	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	McGrath v Mestousis [2017] NSWSC 995	New South Wales	Cited for the principle that consent from the relevant authority is highly material in determining public interest.
Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd v Pacific Rover Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd v Pacific Rover Pte Ltd [2009] 4 SLR(R) 951	Singapore	Cited for the principle that land should be developed to its optimal potential, as permitted by planning law, in Singapore.
Botanica Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2040	Singapore High Court	Yes	Botanica Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2040 [2012] 3 SLR 476	Singapore	Cited for affirming the principle in Yickvi Realty regarding optimal land development.
Khattar v Wiese	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	Khattar v Wiese [2005] NSWSC 1014	New South Wales	Cited for the characterisation and definition of the types of harms not readily compensable.
Tregoyd Gardens Pty Ltd v Jervis	New South Wales Court	Yes	Tregoyd Gardens Pty Ltd v Jervis (1997) 8 BPR 15,845	New South Wales	Cited for the possibility of reserving the Respondent’s leave to apply for compensation.
Coles Myer NSW Ltd v Dymocks Book Arcade Ltd	New South Wales Court	Yes	Coles Myer NSW Ltd v Dymocks Book Arcade Ltd (1996) 7 BPR 14,638	New South Wales	Cited for the principle that the applicant is not required to continue to negotiate by making more and more concessions until consensus is reached to the satisfaction of the person affected.
Hanny v Lewis	New South Wales Court	Yes	Hanny v Lewis (1998) 9 BPR 16,205	New South Wales	Cited for the principle that in almost every case the court would expect some monetary offer to be made because one does not get negotiations rolling until someone has made an offer that can be tested.
Antipas v Kutcher	Unknown	Yes	Antipas v Kutcher	Unknown	Cited for the principle that the whole of the circumstances are to be considered from an objective point of view; once it appears from an objective point of view that it is extremely unlikely that further negotiations will produce a consensus within the reasonably foreseeable future, it may be concluded that all reasonable attempts have been made to obtain the easement.
Tanlane Pty Ltd v. Moorebank Recyclers Pty Ltd (No 2)	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	Tanlane Pty Ltd v. Moorebank Recyclers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2011] NSWSC 1286	New South Wales	Cited for the principle that the resultant disadvantages must be a matter of “virtual certainty” to prevent the court from grating an easement.
Tiananmen KTV (2013) Pte Ltd and others v Furama Pte Ltd	Singapore High Court	Yes	Tiananmen KTV (2013) Pte Ltd and others v Furama Pte Ltd [2015] 3 SLR 433	Singapore	Cited for the principle that losses arising from a “loss of business [and] erosion of customer base” have been recognised by the Singapore courts as being quantifiable and capable of compensation.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Land Titles Act 1993	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Easement
Dominant Tenement
Servient Tenement
Boundary Wall
Intended Redevelopment
Reasonable Necessity
Public Interest
Adequate Compensation
External Buildup
GPR
JTC
BCA

15.2 Keywords

Easement
Land Titles Act
Property Redevelopment
Construction
Singapore
Court Order

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Easements	95
Land Law	90
Property Law	85
Construction Law	50
Construction	45
Contracts	30

16. Subjects

Land
Easements
Property Law
Construction Law