Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd v Pacific Rover Pte Ltd

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeChan Sek Keong CJ
Judgment Date18 September 2009
Neutral Citation[2009] SGCA 44
Date18 September 2009
Subject MatterLand,Whether servient tenement entitled to realign road,Whether injunctive relief available for dominant tenement to restrain realignment of road,Easements,Attempted unilateral realignment by servient tenement of road over which dominant tenement had right of way,Rights of way,Development of land by dominant and servient tenement
Docket NumberCivil Appeal No 20 of 2009
Published date25 September 2009
Defendant CounselLing Tien Wah, Norman Ho and Joseph Lee (Rodyk & Davidson LLP)
CourtCourt of Appeal (Singapore)
Plaintiff CounselGan Hiang Chye, Dawn Tan Ly-Ru and Tang Hui Jing (Rajah & Tann LLP)

18 September 2009

Chan Sek Keong CJ (delivering the grounds of decision of the court):

Introduction

1 This was an appeal against the decision of the High Court in Originating Summons No 1338 of 2008 (“OS 1338/2008”) declaring that the appellant, Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd (“Yickvi”), was not entitled to an injunction to restrain the respondent, Pacific Rover Pte Ltd (“Pacific Rover”), from realigning a road (“the original road”) over which Yickvi has a right of way (“the right of way”) (see Pacific Rover Pte Ltd v Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd [2009] 2 SLR 1148 (“the GD”). The original road and the proposed realigned road (“the realigned road”) are shown in the site plan annexed to these grounds of decision.

2 At the conclusion of the hearing before us, we dismissed the appeal but varied the High Court’s order to require Pacific Rover to give an undertaking to Yickvi allowing the latter immediate access, whenever reasonably required, to maintain and repair the electric cables, pipes and other subterranean service installations running under the original road. We also ordered each party to bear its own costs. We now give our reasons for doing so.

Background facts

3 Yickvi is the owner of Lot No 99500X of Town Subdivision 28 (“the Dominant Land”). Pacific Rover is the owner of Lot No 832N of Town Subdivision 28 (“the Servient Land”). The original road provides access to both the Dominant Land and the Servient Land from Newton Road. Yickvi became the owner of the Dominant Land sometime in 1997. Pacific Rover became the owner of the Servient Land in 2007. Pacific Rover and Yickvi are both real estate developers and written permission from the relevant authorities has been granted to:

(a) Yickvi to erect a block of 11-storey residential apartments, comprising ten units, on the Dominant Land; and

(b) Pacific Rover to erect two blocks of 30-storey residential buildings, comprising 152 units, with a basement carpark, swimming pool and communal facilities, on the Servient Land.

The right of way

4 The right of way was initially granted by the previous owner of the Servient Land to the previous owner of the Dominant Land by an indenture dated 11 May 1903 (“the 1903 Indenture”) with the right to “pass and repass with or without horses bullock carts carriages and motor-cars of all descriptions”. At that time in 1903, the Dominant Land and the Servient Land had only one house erected on each. The right of way was similarly described in a later indenture dated 24 April 1941 (“the 1941 Indenture”). By an Order of Court dated 21 February 1983 made in Originating Summons No 512 of 1981 (“the 1983 Order”), the High Court declared that the plaintiff therein (one Heng Kwee Cher, who was then the owner of the Dominant Land) was entitled to the enjoyment of the right of way. When Yickvi purchased the Dominant Land in 1997 (see [3] above), it became entitled to the enjoyment of the right of way.

5 The original road divides the Servient Land into two parts. The greater part of the Servient Land lies to the west of the original road and, when purchased by Pacific Rover in 2007 (see [3] above), contained the residential buildings of an old 126-unit development known as Elmira Heights. The smaller part of the Servient Land, lying to the east of the original road, which is in the shape of an inverted “C” (“the inverted C-shaped portion”), was occupied by the two tennis courts of Elmira Heights.

Redevelopment of the Dominant Land and the Servient Land

6 To maximise the plot ratio and the use of the Servient Land, Pacific Rover, on the advice of its consultants, proposed to realign the original road so that it would follow the shape of the inverted C-shaped portion of the Servient Land as shown in the site plan annexed to these grounds of decision (see also [5] above). This would allow Pacific Rover to develop the Servient Land as one undivided piece of land. This would also mean that the route of the right of way would have to be realigned to follow the realigned road leading to Newton Road.

7 In or about December 2007, Pacific Rover sought Yickvi’s consent to realign the original road. It would appear that Yickvi was prepared at one time to consent to Pacific Rover’s proposal provided that its subterranean service installations beneath the original road were relocated beneath the realigned road and that the costs of doing so were borne by Pacific Rover. Negotiations broke down because the parties could not agree on this issue. Pacific Rover’s proposal was that Yickvi should continue to site the subterranean services under the original road since Yickvi had already started work on them and relocating these services would cost Pacific Rover considerable expenditure which was unnecessary. Yickvi, on the other hand, objected to the realignment on the ground that it would cause inconvenience to the prospective occupiers of the residential apartments it was developing on the Dominant Land.

8 As a result of this disagreement, Pacific Rover commenced OS 1338/2008 and sought the following alternative orders in the High Court:

1. A declaration that [Pacific Rover’s] proposed realignment of the [original road] … can constitute no wrongful interference with the said right of way as the proposed realignment is minor and [Yickvi] would continue to enjoy the right of way and no reasonable objection could be taken to the proposed realignment.

2. Alternatively, a declaration that [Yickvi] would have no right to injunctive relief against [Pacific Rover] over the proposed realignment of the [original road].

The Order of the High Court and its Grounds of Decision

9 On 11 February 2009, the High Court, relying on the decision in Greenwich Healthcare National Health Service Trust v London and Quadrant Housing Trust [1998] 1 WLR 1749 (“Greenwich”), made the following declaration and orders (“the High Court’s Order”):

(1) [Yickvi has] no right to injunctive relief against [Pacific Rover] over the proposed realignment of the [original road] … running from [the Dominant Land] across [the Servient Land] and leading to Newton Road, and which right of way is more particularly described in [the 1941 Indenture] read with [the 1903 Indenture] provided that the design standards of the [realigned road] must be sufficient to allow access to emergency vehicles and service vehicles such as fire engines and rubbish trucks;

(2) [Pacific Rover is] to allow [Yickvi] up to 31 August 2009 to lay at [Yickvi’s] sole cost and expense Singapore Cable Vision cables and all pipes, cables and other installations ancillary to and necessary for the use and enjoyment of [the Dominant Land] under the [original road];

(3) [Pacific Rover] and all [its] assigns of the development at [the Servient Land] and future successors in title are to allow [Yickvi] to maintain at [Yickvi’s] sole cost and expense the pipes, cables and other installations running under the [original road] at all times, provided [Yickvi] give to [Pacific Rover] or [its] assigns of the said development and future successors in title prior written notice of [its] intention...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 v Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd
    • Singapore
    • Court of Appeal (Singapore)
    • 10 Noviembre 2010
    ...may enable the Court to achieve a just result. See: Bracewell v Appleby [1975] Ch 408; Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd v Pacific Rover Pte Ltd [2009] 4 SLR(R) 951, where the Courts fashioned a remedy that resulted in a just compromise between the parties’ respective proprietary interests and rights. ......
  • Botanica Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2040
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 Mayo 2012
    ...This application is made on the authority of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd v Pacific Rover Pte Ltd [2009] 4 SLR(R) 951 (“Yickvi”). The defendant seeks to strike out the application on the basis that unlike the present case, Yickvi was concerned with an unregis......
  • Botanica Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2040
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 8 Mayo 2012
    ...This application is made on the authority of the decision of the Court of Appeal in Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd v Pacific Rover Pte Ltd [2009] 4 SLR(R) 951 (“Yickvi”). The defendant seeks to strike out the application on the basis that unlike the present case, Yickvi was concerned with an unregis......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT