Pacific Rover Pte Ltd v Yickvi Realty Pte Ltd

Woo Bih Li J:

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

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

[3] Pacific Rover is redeveloping the Servient Land. Likewise, Yickvi is 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.

[4] Pacific Rover approached Yickvi to seek its approval to the proposed realignment of the right of way but negotiations were not successful. It appears that at one time, Yickvi was prepared to agree to the proposed surface realignment of the right of way if the subterranean services beneath the existing right of way were also realigned to follow the proposed surface realignment. However, it turned out that it was either not feasible or practical for the subterranean services to be so realigned for reasons I need not elaborate on.

[5] 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 can 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.

[6] Greenwich Healthcare National Health Service Trust v London and Quadrant Housing Trust and others [1998] 1 WLR 1749 is the basis of the alternative relief sought. I set out below the headnote which summarises the facts:

[7] Lightman J granted a declaration that the defendants were not entitled to an injunction. He said at p 1754 to 1755:

[8] In the case before me, the 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 was not suggesting 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.

[9] In these circumstances, I did not think it 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.

[10] Yickvi’s real concern was that it wanted the right of way to be along the same route as the route for the subterranean services. Its argument was that the existing right of way would facilitate access to maintain subterranean services. However, Pacific Rover was prepared to agree for itself and all its successors in title that Yickvi would be allowed reasonable access to maintain such subterranean services.

[11] The other bone of contention, besides the maintenance works, was the length of time which Pacific Rover was prepared to allow Yickvi to lay cables and pipes and other installations underground along the existing right of way. Pacific Rover suggested six months from the date of my order since it was hoping to launch its development for sale in the not too distant future but Yickvi wanted a longer period without elaborating as to why and how long a longer period it wanted.

[12] Yickvi also did not argue that its right of way also extended to subterranean services.

[14] Yickvi has since appealed against my entire decision.