Management Corp of Grange Heights - Strata Title No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgePunch Coomaraswamy J
Judgment Date05 December 1990
Neutral Citation[1990] SGHC 103
Citation[1990] SGHC 103
Date05 December 1990
Year1990
Plaintiff CounselRaj Singham and Ong Chee Kuan (Drew & Napier)
Docket NumberOriginating Summons No 404 of 1989
Defendant CounselJimmy Yap and Charles Lin (Donaldson & Burkinshaw)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Published date19 September 2003

Cur Adv Vult

The plaintiffs are the management corporation of the land and premises known as Grange Heights which consist of three blocks of high-rise apartments, swimming pool, changing room, tennis court and garden, all of which are erected on the land known as lot 687 of Town Subdivision XXI. Lot 687 is an amalgamation of two separate lots, namely, lot 11-34 and lot 561. Roughly, on lot 111-34 stand the tennis court and the changing room, and on lot 561 stand the three blocks of apartments and the swimming pool.

The defendants are the owners of lot 111-33 of Town Subdivision XXI, which adjoins lot 111-34; the defendants are also owners of lot 111-32 which is next to lot 111-33 and abuts Grange Road.
Adjoining these lots, namely, 111-34, 111-33 and 111-32, is lot 111-31 which is a long, narrow but irregular strip of land leading to Grange Road; it is, in effect, a private road providing access to these lots from Grange Road. Over lot 111-31 is a right of way vested by grants to the owners of lots 111-34, 111-33 and 111-32. I shall refer to lot 111-31 as the servient tenement. It is not in dispute that the defendants are not the owners of the se rvient tenement. The owners of the servient tenement used to be a company called Mutual Trading Ltd which had, in 1919 or thereabouts, gone into liquidation and, presumably, had been dissolved.

Before Grange Heights was developed, both lots 111-34 an d 561 were owned by Hong Leong Holdings Ltd in fee simple.
In connection with the development Hong Leong Holdings Ltd applied for and obtained an amalgamation of these two lots into lot 687. Grange Heights was developed and completed sometime in 1976, and since its completion, the residents of Grange Heights have been using the servient tenement as a footpath for gaining access to and from Grange Road. This fact is not disputed by the defendants. Nor, it seems to me, was it in dispute that the defendants we re at all material times aware that the owners of lot 111-34 have a right of way over the servient tenement. Over the period, approximately between 1972 and 1975, Hong Leong Holdings Ltd and the defendants (formerly known as Collin Development (Pte) Ltd) were involved in litigation in respect of the right of way over the servient tenement: see [1976] 1 MLJ 164 ; [1976] 2 MLJ 149 .

On 25 April 1989, the defendants caused to be erected an iron gate a cross the Grange Road end of the servient tenement and a fence across the Grange Heights end thereof, thus closing the right of way and preventing or interfering with the residents` use of the servient tenement for gaining access to and from Grange Road.
T he plaintiffs thereupon instituted these proceedings against the defendants seeking an injunction and damages. Soon after these proceedings were instituted, the plaintiffs applied...

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex

Unlock full access with a free 7-day trial

Transform your legal research with vLex

  • Complete access to the largest collection of common law case law on one platform

  • Generate AI case summaries that instantly highlight key legal issues

  • Advanced search capabilities with precise filtering and sorting options

  • Comprehensive legal content with documents across 100+ jurisdictions

  • Trusted by 2 million professionals including top global firms

  • Access AI-Powered Research with Vincent AI: Natural language queries with verified citations

vLex
9 cases
  • Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 1 December 2008
    ...3 SLR 157, CA (not folld) Malden Farms Ltd v Nicholson (1956) 3 DLR (2d) 236 (refd) MCST Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd [1990] 2 SLR (R) 634; [1990] SLR 1193 (distd) Miller v Tipling (1918) 43 DLR 469 (refd) New Brunswick Railway Company v British and French Trust Corporation, Li......
  • MCST Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 10 November 2010
    ...with the Residents’ use of the Right of Way (see Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd [1990] 2 SLR(R) 634 (“GH (No 3)”) at [6]). Lee Tat applied to discharge the interim injunction, contending that: the Residents could no longer use the Right of Way ......
  • MCST Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 20 October 2009
    ...Jin CJ, Kulasekaram, and Choor Singh JJ were reported in [1975-1977] SLR 457 and [1975-1977] SLR 202 respectively. In the second action [1990] SLR 1193 the plaintiff (by this time the construction of Grange Heights had been completed) obtained an order for a permanent injunction against the......
  • Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v MCST Plan No 301
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 17 August 2018
    ...The Second Action was heard by Punch Coomaraswamy J. In Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd [1990] 2 SLR(R) 634, Coomaraswamy J held that the amalgamation of Lots 111-34 and 561 had not extinguished the MCST’s Right of Way (at [8]). He also found th......
  • Get Started for Free