Botanica Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2040
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Steven Chong J |
Judgment Date | 08 May 2012 |
Neutral Citation | [2012] SGHC 98 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Quek Mong Hua and Nicholas Poa (Lee & Lee) |
Docket Number | Originating Summons No 1073 of 2011, Summons No 349 of 2012 |
Date | 08 May 2012 |
Hearing Date | 03 April 2012 |
Subject Matter | easements,Land law,interference |
Year | 2012 |
Citation | [2012] SGHC 98 |
Defendant Counsel | William Ricquier and Adrian Aw (Incisive Law LLC) as Counsel and Arfat Selvam (Selvam LLC) as Instructing Solicitors |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 31 May 2012 |
This case concerns an application for a declaration against injunctive relief with the ultimate objective of facilitating the realignment of an access road occasioned by a proposed redevelopment. This application is made on the authority of the decision of the Court of Appeal in
It is not disputed that no distinction was made in
The plaintiff, a company incorporated in Singapore and a wholly owned subsidiary of Wheelock Properties (Singapore) Limited (“Wheelock”), is the owner of Lot No 658X of Town Subdivision 25 (“the Servient Tenement”).
The defendant is the owner of Lot No 721C of Town Subdivision 25 (“the Dominant Tenement”), a plot of land adjoining the Servient Tenement.
BackgroundThe existing easement (“the existing Easement”) was granted on 2 January 1986 by the plaintiff’s predecessor-in-title, Robin Development (Private) Limited, to the defendant’s predecessor-in-title, Fu Yun Siak. It was essentially an extended right of way (“the path”) running across and connecting four adjourning plots of land: Lot No 638 of Town Subdivision 25 (“Lot 638”), the Servient Tenement, the Dominant Tenement, and Lot No 640 of Town Subdivision 25 (“Lot 640”).1 Access from the road to the path is through Lot 638.
Sometime in 1995, a condominium development (“the Heritage Apartments”) was built on the Dominant Tenement. As part of this development, an electrical sub-station was built on the Dominant Tenement at the boundary with the Servient Tenement in order to service the Heritage Apartments.2
In 2007, Lot 638 was redeveloped and the entrance to the existing Easement located at Lot 638 leading into the Servient Tenement from the road was closed. Nonetheless, the path continues to provide access
Pursuant to an en-bloc redevelopment, sometime on or around 28 August 2006, provisional planning approval was obtained by the plaintiff for redevelopment of a new condominium project (“the Ardmore Three”) on the Servient Tenement.4 The redevelopment would entail realigning the path to optimise the use of the land.
In 2011, the plaintiff sought to negotiate with the defendant with a view to reaching an agreement for the proposed realignment of the existing Easement, but to no avail.5
Procedural History On 13 December 2011, the plaintiff filed an application for a court declaration that,
On 25 January 2012, the defendant filed a summons (“Summons No 349 of 2012”) to strike out the Main Application under O 18 r 19 of the Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2006 Rev Ed) (“ROC”), and/or for the court to determine under O 14 r 12 of the ROC that, as a matter of law, the plaintiff has no justifiable cause to apply to the court to realign the existing Easement (“the Striking Out Application”).
At the pre-trial conference on 28 February 2012, the Assistant Registrar (“AR”) decided that the Striking Out Application and the Main Application should be heard separately. The plaintiffs appealed against the decision of the AR (Registrar’s Appeal No 75 of 2012) and the matter came before me on 8 March 2012 (“the 8 March hearing”). During this hearing, the plaintiff disclosed a letter from SP PowerGrid Ltd (“SP Power”) stating that it does not have any objection to the proposed realignment of the existing Easement. Since the main user of the existing Easement was SP Power, for it to gain access to the electrical sub-station, this letter was clearly of some relevance. The defendant’s counsel at that hearing, Mr Adrian Aw, however, informed the court that the SP Power letter was not previously brought to their attention. He further informed the court that the existing Easement is not “indefeasible”, that is to say, the path may be realigned if the
Both applications came before me for hearing on 3 April 2012 (“the 3 April hearing”). I directed the parties to first address the court on the Striking Out Application. The principal argument raised by counsel for the defendant at this hearing, Mr William Ricquier, (“Mr Ricquier”) is that the court has no power under the LTA to modify
Under O 18 rr 19(1)(a) to 19(1)(d) of the ROC, the court may strike out any pleading and dismiss the action on any of the grounds stated therein. In this case, the defendant’s application to strike out the plaintiff’s claim rested on the premise that it discloses no reasonable cause of action, is frivolous and vexatious and/or is an abuse of the process.
The principles governing the court’s power to strike out a claim summarily are well established. Such power will only be exercised in plain and obvious cases, and the courts will generally allow a plaintiff to proceed with the action unless his case is “wholly and clearly unarguable” (see
The question here is whether the plaintiff’s cause of action is “certain to fail” when only the allegations in the pleading are considered (see
The Striking Out Application is principally premised on the defendant’s argument that, as a matter of law, the court does not have the power to modify registered easements under the LTA. This argument must be examined in the context of the Main Application which it seeks to strike out. In this regard, it is critical to bear in mind that the Main Application seeks a declaration,
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Muthukumaran s/o Varthan and another v Kwong Kai Chung and others and another matter
...Rangoon Investment Pte Ltd and others [2013] 2 SLR 1007 at [30] and Botanica Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2040 [2012] 3 SLR 476 at [46(a)]): (a) there must be a dominant and a servient tenement; (b) the easement must accommodate the dominant tenement, ie, is connect......
-
Land Law
...the Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) (‘LTA’) was considered in Botanica Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2040[2012] 3 SLR 476. 20.25 The plaintiff, the owner of the servient land, had sought to negotiate with the defendant, the owner of the dominant land, an agree......