MCST Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Chan Sek Keong CJ |
Judgment Date | 10 November 2010 |
Neutral Citation | [2010] SGCA 39 |
Year | 2010 |
Date | 10 November 2010 |
Published date | 05 January 2011 |
Hearing Date | 19 May 2010 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Francis Xavier SC, Mohammed Reza, Looi Ming Ming, Paul Tan Beng Hwee and Jeremy Gan (Rajah & Tann LLP) |
Citation | [2010] SGCA 39 |
Defendant Counsel | Tan Cheng Han SC (TSMP Law Corporation) and Ernest Balasubramaniam (Unilegal LLC) |
Court | Court of Appeal (Singapore) |
Docket Number | Civil Appeal No 148 of 2009 |
This is an appeal by the appellant, the Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 of Grange Heights (“the MC”), against the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in Originating Summons No 875 of 2009 (“the Present Action”) dismissing the MC’s application for a declaration that the Court of Appeal (“the CA”) has statutory and/or inherent jurisdiction to reopen and set aside an earlier decision which it made and reconstitute itself to rehear the matters dealt with in that decision (see
The Present Action is yet another court proceeding between the MC and the respondent, Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd (“Lee Tat”), after more than 35 years of litigation between these parties and their respective predecessors in title. The parties’ dispute centres on whether the residents of and visitors to Grange Heights (collectively referred to hereafter as “the Residents”) are entitled to use a right of way over Lot 111-31 of Town Sub-Division 21 (“the Servient Land”) for access between Grange Road and the land upon which Grange Heights sits,
The last decision in this marathon saga of litigation was the decision of this court (“the 2008 CA”) in
As events have turned out, the 2008 CA’s judgment has not in fact achieved the objective of bringing finality to the parties’ dispute over the Right of Way as the MC has once again commenced proceedings, this time, by applying in Summons No 3446 of 2009 (“SUM 3446/2009”) to set aside the 2008 CA’s judgment on the ground that it was reached in breach of natural justice. Specifically, the MC alleges that it was not heard on “the basis upon which [the 2008 CA] ultimately based its decision”.1 The orders sought by the MC in SUM 3446/2009 are the following:2
To explain how the filing of SUM 3446/2009 led to the Present Action, it is necessary for us to set out briefly the history of the litigation between the parties and their respective predecessors in title over the Right of Way (for the full background, see
The Servient Land, along with Lot 111-30 of Town Sub-Division 21, Lot 111-32 of Town Sub-Division 21 (“Lot 111-32”), Lot 111-33 of Town Sub-Division 21 (“Lot 111-33”) and Lot 111-34 (collectively, “the Dominant Lands”), originally belonged to a company called Mutual Trading Ltd (“MTL”). In 1919, when MTL was in liquidation, it sold the Dominant Lands to various parties whilst retaining ownership of the Servient Land. To provide access from the Dominant Lands to Grange Road and
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 others 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 [Servient Land].
The MC’s predecessor in title, Hong Leong Holdings Ltd (“HLH”), became the owner of Lot 111-34 in 1970, and Collin Development Pte Ltd (“Collin”), which was subsequently renamed Lee Tat (
It would appear that when HLH bought Lot 561 to amalgamate it with Lot 111-34 for residential development, it decided that the development should have an address and a name associated with Grange Road rather than with either Killiney Road or River Valley Road. In the Present Action, the MC has candidly admitted that its principal objective in SUM 3446/2009 is to have the 2008 CA’s judgment set aside, with a view to restoring the status quo
When HLH drew up its plans to develop Grange Heights in 1970, it submitted a proposed layout plan which included a road over the Servient Land as a means of access between Grange Road and the development. That appears to have been an attempt by HLH to secure a permanent right to use the Right of Way to cross from Grange Road to Lot 111-34 and thence to Lot 561, and
Grange Heights was completed in 1976. It comprises,
The first action in this long-running saga of litigation (“the First...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Re Beloff Michael Jacob QC
...Joseph David QC, Re [2012] 1 SLR 791 (refd) Marplan Pte Ltd v AG [2013] 3 SLR 201 (refd) MCST Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 998 (refd) Royal Bank of Scotland NV, The v TT International Ltd [2012] 2 SLR 213 (refd) Royal Bank of Scotland NV, The v TT International Ltd......
-
Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario
...(refd) Law Society of Singapore v Top Ten Entertainment Pte Ltd [2011] 2 SLR 1279 (folld) MCST Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 998 (refd) Mc C, Re [1985] 1 AC 528 (refd) Microsoft Corp v SM Summit Holdings Ltd [2000] 1 SLR (R) 423; [2000] 2 SLR 137 (refd) Muhd Munir v......
-
Merck Sharp & Dohme Corporation v Merck KGaA
...Strata Title Plan No 301 [2009] 1 SLR(R) 875 and Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 998 (“Lee Tat (No 2)”), both of which stemmed from the protracted litigation over whether the residents of and visitors to Grange Heights condominium w......
-
Re Beloff Michael Jacob QC
...306; [2003] 2 SLR 306 (refd) Lord Goldsmith Peter Henry PC QC, Re [2013] 4 SLR 921 (refd) MCST Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 998 (refd) Oriental Insurance Co Ltd, The v Reliance National Asia Re Pte Ltd [2008] 3 SLR (R) 121; [2008] 3 SLR 121 (refd) Royal Bank of Sco......
-
Litigation
...Ltd [2009] BLR 261 at 265 [16]–266 [20], per Coulson J; Management Corporation Strata Title Plan no. 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd [2010] SGCA 39; Burgundy Global Exploration Corp v Transocean Ofshore International Ventures Ltd [2014] SGCA 24 at [37]; Geocon Piling & Engineering Pte Ltd......
-
Conflict of Laws
...Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 [2009] 1 SLR(R) 875; Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd [2011] 1 SLR 998. 466 The Royal Bank of Scotland NV v TT International Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 1104. 467 Malaysian Trustees Bhd v Tan Hock Keng [2021] SGHC 162; T......
-
Civil Procedure
...has been a breach of a court order. Jurisdiction 8.75 In Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd [2010] SGCA 39 at [55], the Court of Appeal confirmed that it has the inherent jurisdiction to re-open and re-hear an issue which it decided in breach of na......