Huber’s Butchery wins lawsuit to access neighbour’s land to build new HQ and meat factory

The construction of meat products supplier Huber’s Butchery’s new headquarters and factory in Chin Bee Avenue recently got off the ground, after it won a legal victory to get temporary access to its neighbour’s property.

Huber’s needed to access its neighbour’s property for 60 days so it could demolish an adjoining boundary wall and erect temporary support structures needed to start its redevelopment project.

Works had been stalled for about 1½ years because the neighbour had refused to allow it to do so.

Huber’s legal victory was detailed in a written judgment released on Sept 6.

It is the first time the High Court has granted an application by one tenant to temporarily access another’s property in order to optimise land use.

Huber’s lawyer, Mr Joseph Tay, a partner with Shook Lin & Bok, said the case could have implications for land owners, tenants and developers who need to renovate or redevelop their property, but have to put up temporary safety structures such as scaffolding, hoardings and dust-and-noise barriers on their neighbour’s land.

Legally, this is not allowed unless the neighbour consents, as it amounts to trespass.

But he pointed out that Section 97A of the Land Titles Act, passed by Parliament in 2014 to facilitate redevelopment, allows the court to grant access to someone’s land, if it is reasonably necessary.

In the case of Huber’s, the redevelopment of its new building at 16 Chin Bee Avenue in Jurong West was stalled because its neighbour, Hu Lee Impex, a fresh produce distributor at 16A Chin Bee Avenue, refused to grant access to its property, citing inconvenience and potential business disruption.

Hu Lee did so even though Huber’s had obtained approval in April 2023 from its landlord JTC for its redevelopment, and from the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) for demolition works.

Construction of Huber’s new 65,000 sq ft building was originally scheduled to start in early 2023 and would have been completed by 2025.

Instead, its factory will relocate from its current 15,000 sq ft facility in Pandan Loop to 16 Chin Bee Avenue only in late 2026, co-owner Andre Huber told ST.

Without the safety structures, Huber’s could not demolish the boundary wall and begin its redevelopment project.

After more than a year of deadlocked negotiations, it took legal action in November 2023.

Judicial Commissioner Alex Wong Li Kok found that temporary access to Hu Lee’s land was reasonably necessary for Huber’s redevelopment and that Huber’s had made “all reasonable attempts” to obtain that access.

He also found that Hu Lee, which has property rights as a tenant, could be “adequately compensated” for losses resulting from giving right of access to Huber’s. 

Under Section 97A, Huber’s was required to pay $10,000 in legal costs and may be required to compensate Hu Lee for business disruption.

In refusing to grant access to Huber’s, the produce distributor had argued that its 40ft containers would not have enough space to manoeuvre into and out of the loading and unloading bays and could collide with the scaffolding, causing property damage and injury.

Hu Lee added that its ability to keep its containers refrigerated would be affected, potentially damaging the quality of the produce and causing it to lose customers.

But Huber’s contended that Hu Lee’s claims of revenue losses and business disruptions were “heavily overblown”.

The judge agreed, finding that “while the relocation of several plug-ins, containers and unloading operations (even off-premises) would likely incur additional costs, these were logistical challenges that could be addressed” and could be “adequately compensated with appropriate orders”.

He found that despite Hu Lee’s efforts to “downplay BCA’s approval, the fact remained that BCA was much more qualified to assess the safety of the demolition methodology than the court”.

“Despite having sight of (Hu Lee’s) various experts’ reports, BCA maintained that the approved plan has considered both the safety of demolition works as well as the safety of occupants,” he pointed out.

The judge disagreed with Hu Lee’s claim that Huber’s had “failed to engage in sufficient discussions” before taking legal action.

He also found that Huber’s had sent various e-mails to Hu Lee of its intention to demolish the boundary wall and access its premises, and “made continuous attempts to negotiate with Hu Lee, until it was clear that further negotiations were unlikely to produce a consensus in (the) light of (Hu Lee’s) lack of response to (Huber’s) e-mails”.

The judge disagreed with Hu Lee’s claim that a reasonable attempt at compensation had not been made.

He said Huber’s had offered to buy an insurance policy in favour of Hu Lee during its demolition works to insure the distributor against potential damage or loss arising from the demolition and to compensate for its loss of exclusive use of the open area.

“The parties had only just become neighbours and, unfortunately, one of their first substantive interactions was a lawsuit,” said the judge.

“I encourage (Hu Lee) to be cooperative in allowing (Huber’s) to complete its redevelopment and I encourage (Huber’s) to be fair in its compensation to (Hu Lee), for its troubles.”

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Iswaran’s 12-month prison term underlines intrinsic value of public trust: Opinion Luxe, high-value goods dealers to help spot red flags as part of tighter anti-money laundering efforts