Scribd
Upload
79 views

Lye Thean Soo & Ors

The respondents were sand mining contractors who entered agreements to mine sand from landowners' holdings. They accessed these holdings via a road that ran through a lot of land that had long been reserved for public road use. The appellants obstructed the road, preventing the respondents' vehicles from accessing the holdings. The issues before the court were whether the lot was a public highway before and after 1957. The High Court judge found for the respondents, determining that the lot had become a public right of way through dedication due to public use for many years without interruption. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the respondents had established a public right of way through common law proof of dedication.

Uploaded by

Charumathy Nair
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
79 views

Lye Thean Soo & Ors

The respondents were sand mining contractors who entered agreements to mine sand from landowners' holdings. They accessed these holdings via a road that ran through a lot of land that had long been reserved for public road use. The appellants obstructed the road, preventing the respondents' vehicles from accessing the holdings. The issues before the court were whether the lot was a public highway before and after 1957. The High Court judge found for the respondents, determining that the lot had become a public right of way through dedication due to public use for many years without interruption. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, agreeing that the respondents had established a public right of way through common law proof of dedication.

Uploaded by

Charumathy Nair
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
Available Formats
Download as PPTX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 6

LYE THEAN SOO & ORS

v
SYARIKAT WARSAW
FACTS
The respondents in this case were sand mining and sand
contractors. They had entered into agreements with various land
owners to mine, work and take away sand from their holdings.

Entry to their holdings was by way of an access road on a lot
which for many years had been reserved for a road and set aside
as such and used by the public.

Although the lot of land had been surrendered to the government
it had not been taken over by the government.

The respondents claimed that the appellants had wrongfully and
maliciously conspired and combined among themselves to injure
their business by obstructing the access road and preventing their
lorries and other vehicles transporting sand from going in and out
of the holdings.
The appellants denied the claim. The appellants had
applied for subdivision of the lands in 1957.

The third appellant retained the lot of land on which
the road was and said he had granted the right of
entry to the lot only with his consent.
Before the judge of the High Court, two issues were
agreed:
i. was the lot a public highway prior to 1957?

ii. was the lot a public highway after 1957? The
learned trial judge gave judgment for the
respondents.

The appellants appealed.

JUDGEMENT
Apart from legislation, dedication is also a method by which a
right of way may be created.

In this case the path has been used by the public, particularly
those living in the vicinity for many years, even before the third
appellant acquired ownership of the land, without interruption.
He had taken no steps to ensure that a public right of way was not
so created. The path has been used and enjoyed by the public as a
right for so many years openly and without interruption and must
be known to the owner of the land.

The respondents were merely using the common law method of
establishing a public right of way by proof of dedication. The
learned judge was within his right to accept it and there is no
reason to interfere with his decision.

The appeal was dismissed.

You might also like