[2005] SGHC 162

“ied to a tenancy matter. This has been accepted in subsequent cases (see Tan Soo Leng David v Lim Thian Chai Charles and another [1998] 1 SLR(R) 880 at [27]–[28]; Lim Kau Tee and another v Lee Kay Li [2005] SGHC 162 at [45]– [47]; Hsu Hsueh Hui (alias Jenny Hsu) v Foong Yook Kooi and others [2022] SGHC 108 at [102]; an”

“long as it substantially interferes with the title to or possession of the demised premises or the ordinary and lawful enjoyment of those premises by the tenant: Lim Kau Tee and another v Lee Kay Li [2005] SGHC 162 (“Lim Kau Tee”) at [54].”

“t of the demised premises is substantially interfered with by the acts or omission of the lessor or those lawfully claiming under him, the covenant is broken: See Lim Kau Tee and another v Lee Kay Li [2005] SGHC 162 (“Lim Kau Tee”) at [48] .”

“In relation to the Quiet Enjoyment Breach, both counsel for the Claimant as well as for the Defendant cited the decision of Lai Siu Chiu J in Lim Kau Tee and Anor v Lee Kay Li [2005] SGHC 162 (“Lim Kau Tee”). In my view, the following general principles endorsed in Lim Kau Tee are relevant to the proceedings before me:”