Scribd
Upload
233 views

Madam Chah Siam V Chops Choy Kong Share (1939) MLJ Rep 187

In Madam Chah Siam v Chops Choy Kong share [1939], the plaintiff's fish pond collapsed after the defendant conducted mining activities near the boundary. The plaintiff claimed compensation relying on the right to lateral land support. However, the court dismissed the claim because the land was not in its natural state due to previous mining excavation and being filled with water. The court held that the right to lateral land support only applies to land in its natural state, and excavating the land or filling it with water removes this right.

Uploaded by

Muhammad Alif Haikal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
233 views

Madam Chah Siam V Chops Choy Kong Share (1939) MLJ Rep 187

In Madam Chah Siam v Chops Choy Kong share [1939], the plaintiff's fish pond collapsed after the defendant conducted mining activities near the boundary. The plaintiff claimed compensation relying on the right to lateral land support. However, the court dismissed the claim because the land was not in its natural state due to previous mining excavation and being filled with water. The court held that the right to lateral land support only applies to land in its natural state, and excavating the land or filling it with water removes this right.

Uploaded by

Muhammad Alif Haikal
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

MADAM CHAH SIAM V CHOPS CHOY KONG SHARE [1939] MLJ REP 187

Introduction

The right to support the land are well explained under Section 44 (1) (b) which means the
right to receive land support continuously from adjacent land. This showed that the neighbouring
land owner has a duty to keep it permanent and not collapse or eroded. However, this right have
certain condition which includes, the land must be in natural state. If the land has been modified,
then it is not entitled to claim the support rights of the neighbouring land. This is because the
land that has been modified from the original state has the possibility to collapse compared to the
land maintained in the original position.

Facts

In the case of Madam Chah Siam v Chops Choy Kong share [1939] MLJ REP 187, the
plaintiff occupied the former mines land under TOL and used his land to breed fish. At the same
time, the defendant, which is the owner of the adjacent land has carried out the activities of
finding ore in an area near to the boundary of the pond which belonging to the plaintiff. As a
consequence of that, the plaintiff fish pond had collapsed and he suffered a significant damage
due to the loss of his fishes. Plaintiff claims for compensation and relying on the doctrine of
lateral support to the land. However, the court rejected the plaintiff claim on the basis that the
land was proven to be not in a natural state therefore in not entitled to land support. The court
also add that, the pond build by the Plaintiff is filled with large amounts of water resulting in
pressure on the land and weakens the structure of the plaintiff’s land.

Issue

1. The issue is whether the plaintiff are entitled to claim a compensation based on the land
support rights due damage happen and the loss of his fishes.
2. The issue is whether the plaintiff can rely on the doctrine of lateral support to the land.

Parties Contention:

1. The defendant is negligent on carrying on his mining operations which resulting the bank
to collapse and the water from the pond poured into the mine.
2. The plaintiff claimed that her fish pond will not collapse only if the defendant did not
remove the earth for mining work that supporting the land.

Held

Dismisses the Plaintiff’s claim on the basis that

1. The land in its natural state had an absolute right of support from the adjoining lands.
However in this case, the pond is a result from excavation caused by mining which was
filled up with water. Therefore, the land is not in its natural state however it is in the
excavated state. Hence the plaintiff’s land does not entitled to the lateral support.
2. The plaintiff does not entitled to right of support because this right only applies to the
land in its natural state and the right does not become a greater right when excavations
are made on the land.

You might also like