Wee Siew Bock and another v Chan Yuen Yee Alexia Eve and another appeal

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Chao Hick Tin JA
• Judgment Date: 28 June 2012
• Neutral Citation: [2012] SGCA 33
• Date: 28 June 2012
• Docket Number: Civil Appeals Nos 103 and 151 of 2011
• Published date: 04 July 2012
• Plaintiff Counsel: Deborah Barker SC, Spring Tan (Khattarwong LLP)
• Hearing Date: 09 April 2012
• Defendant Counsel: Vinodh Coomaraswamy SC, Edmund Eng Zixuan, Vincent Lim and Benjamin Ng (Shook Lin & Bok LLP)
• Court: Court of Appeal (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Easements,RES JUDICATA,LAND

V K Rajah JA (delivering the judgment of the court): Introduction

In land-scarce Singapore, a home is often a family’s most prized possession. As a result, perceived interference with its use or enjoyment can provoke strong emotions. Homeowners, quite naturally, experience deep indignation when they feel that their “entrenched rights” are violated by a neighbour. This, in turn, often induces such homeowners to react obdurately to that neighbour’s “high-handed” conduct. What inevitably follows is a cantankerous contest of wills that leaves in its wake a sour aftertaste.

Undoubtedly, it is preferable that such differences between neighbours be resolved by the application of neighbourly common sense based upon the golden maxim of “do unto your neighbour as you would have your neighbour do unto you”, rather than based upon strict legal principles. The ethic of reasonable “give and take” ought to be the touchstone. If that cannot be invoked, it is always desirable to have such disputes resolved by mediation rather than by the courts. Nevertheless, when one or both parties insist on maintaining their strict legal rights (whether mistakenly or otherwise), mediation will not work, as in this matter. Acknowledging this, we have taken some pains in this judgment to explain and clarify the law on easements in the form of private rights of way to assist others in resolving similar issues in future. From that point of view, some good has come out of these proceedings.

Of the two appeals before us, Civil Appeal No 103 of 2011 (“CA 103”) arises from the decision of the High Court judge (“the Judge”) in Originating Summons No 85 of 2011 (“OS 85”), while Civil Appeal No 151 of 2011 (“CA 151”) arises from the Judge’s decision in Originating Summons No 350 of 2011 (“OS 350”). OS 85 and OS 350 were filed by the appellants in both appeals, Wee Siew Bock (“Wee”) and his wife, Chia Foong Lin (collectively referred to hereafter as “the Appellants”), against the respondent in both appeals, Chan Yuen Yee Alexia Eve (“the Respondent”). At the heart of these appeals is a fractious dispute between two neighbouring landowners about the extent of their respective rights in relation to an easement granted in favour of the Appellants over part of the land belonging to the Respondent.¹ Some interesting legal issues have arisen. What is the true extent of the rights that each of these owners has over the land that is affected by the easement? How does the law strike an appropriate balance between the rights of a dominant owner (viz, the owner of a dominant tenement) apropos those of a servient owner (viz, the owner of a servient tenement)? For ease of discussion, we shall hereafter use the expression “easement land” to refer generically to that part of a servient tenement which is affected by an easement, the expression “the Easement Land” to refer specifically to the easement land in issue in the present appeals and the expression “the Easement” to refer to the easement granted in favour of the Appellants over the Easement Land. We shall also use the terms “use”, “usage” and “enjoyment” interchangeably in discussing the exercise by a landowner of his rights over his land and the exercise by a dominant owner of his rights under an easement.

The plots of land involved

All the parcels of land in issue in the present appeals are registered under the Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed) (“the LTA”). The Appellants have been the registered proprietors of the dominant tenement, No 22 Oei Tiong Ham Park, Singapore 267027 (“No 22”), since 2 January 2003, while the Respondent has been the registered proprietor of the servient tenement, No 23 Oei Tiong Ham Park, Singapore 267028 (“No 23”), since 14 April 2005. The plot of land on which No 22 stands originally comprised two parcels of land, and its boundaries were approved on 15 October 1968. As for the plot of land on which No 23 stands, its boundaries were approved on 20 July 1960. Both parties reside at present in their respective properties.

The disputes in both appeals revolve around the Easement, which is a registered easement conferring on “the Owner of the time being of [No 22] … a right of way at all times for all purposes over and along the [Easement] [L]and”² and the right to “construct lay and use any drains pipes and cables on over or under the [Easement] [L]and and hereditaments hereby conveyed”.³ Of these two rights, it is the right of way over the Easement Land which the present appeals turn on, and the references hereafter to the use or, conversely, the abandonment of the Easement should be understood in this light. The Easement Land is stated in the transfer dated 28 June 1983 to have a length of approximately 30m and a width of 8m.⁴ These are generous measurements. For perspective, we should add that two ordinary domestic vehicles can, even today (after the completion of all the reconstruction works described in this judgment), comfortably pass each other in opposite directions on the Easement Land.

In terms of the physical state of the Easement Land, it consists mainly of a paved driveway (“the Driveway”), which is the only means of access for both parties from their respective properties to the public road at Oei Tiong Ham Park. For ease of reference, we shall use the phrase “the end of the Easement Land” to refer to that part of the Easement Land adjoining the gates of No 22 and No 23, and the phrase “the entrance of the Easement Land” to refer to that part of the Easement Land adjoining the public road at Oei Tiong Ham Park. At the end of the Easement Land on the right-hand side of the Driveway (ie, on the side nearer to No 23), there is a raised kerb with a grass verge on which now stand three mature trees and a wall (“the Kerb Wall”). The Respondent’s assertion that these trees have been growing at the same area of the Easement Land for approximately the past 20 years⁵ is not disputed by the Appellants. On the left-hand side of the Driveway (ie, on the side nearer to No 22) is a narrow strip of grass. At the entrance of the Easement Land, there is at present an automatic remote-controlled gate (“the Auto-Gate”), with a meter box and a pedestrian access gate to the right of the Auto-Gate.

Background to the proceedings

We now set out in some detail the facts which set in motion the chain of events that precipitated these appeals. This will give context to the legal issues that have arisen for resolution.

In mid-2010, both parties concurrently commenced, without any prior notice to each other, reconstruction works at their respective properties. As the true extent of these works was revealed inchmeal, the seeds of mistrust between the parties began to take deep root. Their relationship soured and communications ceased, eventually triggering a flurry of legal proceedings by both parties.

As part of the reconstruction works in relation to No 23, the Respondent planned to install an automatic remote-controlled gate (viz, the Auto-Gate) at the entrance of the Easement Land. She offered the Appellants equal access to the Easement Land by means of a remote control and a set of manual keys for the Auto-Gate. (As will be seen at [83] below, the Respondent also offered to take other measures to allay the Appellants’ concerns about the installation of the Auto-Gate.) However, this plan was strenuously objected to by the Appellants, who insisted that the Respondent was not entitled to close the Auto-Gate at any time. On the Appellants’ part, they wanted to lay utility pipes and cables below the Easement Land as well as shift the position of No 22’s gate along the Driveway towards the end of the Easement Land. This shift eventually took place. There is some disagreement in these proceedings between the parties about the precise distance by which No 22’s gate was moved, with the Respondent saying that it was a 100cm shift, while the Appellants place the figure at 70cm. We shall return to this point later as it has a bearing on one of the Appellants’ most spirited complaints (see below at [75] and [81]). The Respondent objected to the Appellants’ plan to relocate No 22’s gate, citing safety concerns for pedestrians and vehicles alike due to the creation of a blind spot and a reduced vehicular turning circle.⁶ She additionally complained that her property (No 23) had been damaged when the vehicle of the Appellants’ contractor collided into her brick gate post.⁷ She also objected to the Appellants’ laying of utility pipes and cables under the Easement Land without adequate prior notification because this affected her own reconstruction plans, such as her plan to build a porch and an angled wall (collectively referred to hereafter as a “P&A wall”).⁸ The Appellants did not view the Respondent’s concerns sympathetically and concluded that she was acting in a high-handed manner. Communications between the parties became brusque and then ceased altogether.

To resolve this impasse, the Respondent filed Originating Summons No 46 of 2011 (“OS 46”) on 20 January 2011. She sought the following orders: (a) an injunction to stop the Appellants from laying utility pipes and cables under the Easement Land without first providing her with detailed plans and drawings of the intended works; (b) a declaration that the Appellants did not have the right to lay utility pipes and cables under the Easement Land in any manner that they deemed fit, but could only do so in a manner that did not cause undue interference with her reasonable enjoyment of No 23; (c) a declaration that the Appellants’ relocation of No 22’s gate was in excess of their rights under the Easement; (d) a mandatory injunction directing the Appellants to either restore No 22’s gate to its original position or take other measures to ensure that the changed position of No 22’s gate did not pose any danger to her (the Respondent) and her family, and did not cause undue interference with her reasonable...