Collin Development (Pte) Ltd v Hong Leong Holdings Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: Court of Three Judges (Singapore)
• Judgment Date: 10 September 1976
• Date: 10 September 1976
• Docket Number: Court of Appeal No 11 of 1976

[1976] SGCA 7

Court of Appeal

Wee Chong Jin CJ

,

T Kulasekaram J

and

Choor Singh J

Court of Appeal No 11 of 1976

Collin Development (Pte) Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Hong Leong Holdings Ltd

Defendant

C S Wu (Donaldson & Burkinshaw) for the appellant

Cheng Tim Pin (Yap & Yap) for the respondent.

Injunctions–Injunction quia timet–Easement–Right of way–Two dominant tenements sharing right of way over servient tenement–Owner of one dominant tenement proposing to use right of way as access to development on its land–Whether proposed use would substantially interfere with other dominant tenement's right of way–Whether injunction restraining proposed use should be granted–Land–Easements–Rights of way–Injunction quia timet–Two dominant tenements sharing right of way over servient tenement–Owner of one dominant tenement proposing to use right of way as access to development on its land–Whether proposed use would substantially interfere with other dominant tenement's right of way–Whether injunction restraining proposed use should be granted

The appellant owned two pieces of land and the respondent owned two adjoining pieces of land. Adjoining the four pieces of land was Lot 111-31, a long narrow reserve for road over which a right of way was vested by grant to the appellant and respondent as owners of the four pieces of land. The respondent was in the course of building three blocks of 120 high-rise flats on its land, and proposed to use Lot 111-31 as a means of ingress from Grange Road to the flats. The appellant applied for a quia timet injunction to restrain the respondent from using and inviting purchasers of its flats to use Lot 111-31 for this purpose, arguing that the proposed use would substantially interfere with its right of way. The trial judge found it highly improbable that vehicular traffic using Lot 111-31 would be so heavy as to substantially interfere with the appellant's right of way and refused to grant the injunction. The appellant appealed.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) For the owner of a dominant tenement to succeed in an application for a quia timet injunction, he had to show that there was likely to be a substantial interference with his enjoyment of the right of way granted to him over the servient tenement. The answer to this question depended upon the nature of the right of way, of the locus in quo, and upon the general circumstances of the case: at [7].

(2) No case was made out for a quia timet injunction...