Collin Development (Pte) Ltd v Hong Leong Holdings Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judge: Chua F A J
• Judgment Date: 27 February 1976
• Neutral Citation: [1976] SGHC 3
• Citation: [1976] SGHC 3
• Plaintiff Counsel: Lee Bon Leong (Lee & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Cheng Tim Pin (Yap & Yap)
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Docket Number: Suit No 3667 of 1974
• Date: 27 February 1976
• Subject Matter: Cause of action of one co-owner against the other,Dominant tenement,Absence of owner of servient tenement,Easements,Extinguishment and abandonment of easement,Parties,Co-owners,Land,Rights of way

The plaintiff is the owner of two pieces of land known as Lot 11132 and Lot 11133 both of TS XXI in the District of Claymore, Singapore. The defendant is the owner of Lot 11134 and adjoining Lot 561 (formerly known as Lot 122) of the same Town sub-division and District.

Adjoining Lots 11132, 11133 and 11134 is Lot 11131.

It is not in dispute that the owners of Lots 11132, 11133 and 11134 have vested in them a right of way over Lot 11131, which contains an area of 9,276 sq ft (the right of way). Lots 11131, 11132, 11133, 11134 were formerly one lot owned by Mutual Trading Ltd. Lot 11131 is still owned by Mutual Trading Ltd.

The right of way was granted by Mutual Trading Ltd (then in liquidation) in 1919 and the terms of the grant is in the following terms:

And Together with full and free right and liberty for the Purchaser his executors administrators and assigns being the owner or owners for the time being of the land hereby conveyed or any part thereof and their tenants and servants and all other persons authorised by him or them in common with other having a similar right from time to time and at all times hereafter at his and their will and pleasure to pass and repass with or without animals and vehicles, in along and over the reserve for road coloured yellow in the said plan.

The defendant is a firm of land developers and it was at the time of the filing of the writ in December 1974 in the course of building three blocks of high rise flats and garden on its properties Lot 561 and Lot 11134, known as `Grange Heights`. The blocks of flats are built on Lot 561 and the garden, with tennis courts, is on Lot 11134.

The plaintiff complained that (1) the defendant had permitted its contractors employed for the construction of Grange Heights to use the right of way for access into and egress from Lot 561; (2) the defendant`s contractors had excavated the side table of the metal road on the right of way and the earth excavated was removed to the Grange Heights site for filling purposes; (3) the defendant was in the course of making up a metal road which led from Grange Heights in the direction of the right of way and the defendant intended to link up the road with Grange Road through the right of way; (4) the defendant was in the course of selling the apartments in Grange Heights, and in its brochure regarding Grange Heights the defendant represented that it intended to give the purchasers access to Grange Heights at three points, one of them from Grange Road through the right of way.

The plaintiff now claims against the defendant for:

(1) A

...