Pacific Rover Pte Ltd v Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Judgment Date: 18 March 2009
• Docket Number: Originating Summons No 1338 of
• Date: 18 March 2009

Pacific Rover Pte Ltd

Plaintiff

and

Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd

Defendant

[2009] SGHC 63

Woo Bih Li J

Originating Summons No 1338 of 2008

High Court

Land–Easements–Rights of way–Unilateral realignment of right of way by servient tenement–Whether injunctive relief available for dominant tenement

The plaintiff Pacific Rover Pte Ltd (“Pacific Rover”) was the owner of Lot No 832N of Town Subdivision 28 (“the Servient Land”) in the Newton area. The defendant Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd (“Yickvi”) was the owner of Lot No 99500X of Town Subdivision 28 (“the Dominant Land”).

Yickvi had a right of way that cut through the Servient Land such that most of that land lay on one side of the right of way and the balance of the land, in the form of an inverted C shape was on the other side of the right of way. The Servient Land had an old development known as Elmira Heights. The smaller portion thereof which had the inverted C shape (“the inverted C shape portion”) contained the tennis court and the larger portion thereof contained the residential buildings.

Pacific Rover was redeveloping the Servient Land. Yickvi was developing the Dominant Land. To maximise the plot ratio and use of the Servient Land, Pacific Rover's consultants had proposed that the existing right of way be realigned so that part of the right of way would run against the eastern part of the boundary wall of the Servient Land by following the flow of the inverted C shape portion, before joining the rest of the existing right of way.

Pacific Rover approached Yickvi to seek its approval to the proposed realignment of the right of way but negotiations were not successful. As the parties could not agree on the proposed realignment of the right of way, Pacific Rover filed the present application to seek a declaration that the proposed realignment of the right of way could constitute no wrongful interference with the right of way or, alternatively, a declaration that Yickvi would have no right to injunctive relief against Pacific Rover in respect of the proposed realignment.

Held, granting a declaration that Yickvi had no right to injunctive relief over the proposed realignment:

(1) Realignment would have meant that the new right of way would not be relatively straight but would have an inverted C shape route before joining the rest of the existing right of way. However, Yickvi did not suggest that this would cause major inconvenience to the residents of its development. There was also no suggestion that the proposed realignment would pose a greater danger to safety: at [8].

(2) In the circumstances it was not right to deny Pacific Rover the full use of the Servient Land just because of Yickvi's existing right of way when an alternative, which did not substantially affect the enjoyment of the right of way, was available: at [9].

(3) As for Yickvi's wish to have the right of way along the same route as the subterranean services, Pacific Rover was prepared to agree for itself and...