The Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. 561 v Kosma Holdings Pte Ltd

The management corporation of Parklane Shopping Mall (the MCST) sought an easement of right of way over a service road owned by KOSMA Holdings Pte Ltd. The service road was the only way vehicles could reach the Mall's loading bay and bin centre. The application followed KOSMA charging refuse collection trucks parking fees to enter the road and installing structures that impeded entry to the loading bay.

In an earlier judgment, [2025] SGHC 185, the High Court indicated it would create the easement under s 97A(1) of the Land Titles Act 1993, but the last requirement, that the MCST make all reasonable attempts to obtain the easement first, was not yet met. The parties then exchanged proposals in October and November 2025. They agreed on removing a bollard and a barrier but disagreed on the scope of the easement. This supplemental judgment in Originating Application No 608 of 2025 and Summons No 1687 of 2025 settled the remaining points, including the MCST's claim that $6,000 demanded for six unauthorised entries was a penalty.

1. Whether the easement should cover refuse trucks, contractors and delivery vehicles, and on what charges or conditions.
2. Whether the easement should be registered, extend to pedestrians, or expressly bar further obstructions.
3. Whether the MCST should contribute to maintenance of the service road or adopt measures to limit damage.
4. Whether the $1,000 administrative fee per unauthorised entry was an unenforceable penalty, and how costs should fall.

The MCST's main proposal, moving the carpark gantry inward by 6.5 metres, went beyond what was reasonably necessary for the effective use of the Mall; where to place the gantry was KOSMA's decision as owner. Refuse trucks had to be covered without charge, since excluding them was the clearest example of impairing the Mall's use. Contractors and delivery vehicles were less frequent and could fairly pay entry charges, which encourage efficient use. KOSMA's promise to keep future rates reasonable left too much room for dispute, so the court pegged loading bay charges to no more than 1.5 times carpark rates, a self-policing approach tied to the market.

Under s 97A(5), a court-created easement binds only once registered, so registration was ordered, though the court saw no need yet to place registration duties on KOSMA and gave liberty to apply. Pedestrian access was not reasonably necessary: pedestrians could use the main entrance, and gantry problems were met by KOSMA's 24-hour phonelines and emergency mechanism. Obstructions are impliedly prohibited by the easement itself, so no express order was needed.

On compensation, KOSMA earned revenue from most traffic on the road, but extra wear from refuse trucks fell mainly on the 6.4m stretch, so equal sharing of costs for that portion only was sufficient. KOSMA's other proposed measures, such as limited delivery hours, smaller trucks and insurance, went beyond adequate compensation.

The declaration could be made against KOSMA because its subsidiary, K Parking Pte Ltd, issued the invoices as its managing agent. The fee applied to motorists who evaded parking fees by tailgating, so the relevant loss was unpaid parking, at $7.00 per half hour. A $1,000 fee was extravagant and unconscionable against that loss. Refuse trucks had no other way in, and KOSMA showed no evidence that such fees were common. On costs, s 97A(4) makes the applicant pay unless the court orders otherwise. KOSMA's defence was not so unreasonable as to lose costs, though it pressed some arguments too far and lost on the $6,000 point, so the sum was reduced.

The court granted an easement of right of way over the service road to the loading bay and bin centre, free of charge for refuse collection vehicles and, for other vehicles, on payment of charges no higher than 1.5 times those for entry to the carpark. As a condition, the MCST must equally share KOSMA's later costs of maintenance, repairs and replacement for the 6.4m stretch next to the loading bay. The easement is to be registered under s 97 of the Land Titles Act. The court declared that the S$6,000 claimed was an irrecoverable penalty and unenforceable. It made no orders on SUM 1687, which had been overtaken, and ordered the MCST to pay KOSMA costs of $10,000, all-in.