The common law rule that requires certainty in the terminus of leasehold estates has been the subject of trenchant criticism even as it has been upheld repeatedly by the courts. In Berrisford v. Mexfield Housing Co-operative Ltd [2011] 3W.L.R 1091, the English Supreme Court has once again upheld the rule but has suggested that its harshness may be empered by two different techniques. This note studies the viability of these techniques in Singapore and questions if the rule may be too severely criticised.

Suppose I have filed my statement of claim endorsing the writ in rem, and the Registrar has issued a warrant of arrest reflecting this claim. I then proceed to exe- cute a warrant of arrest to arrest a vessel. Now, suppose, however, I later discover that the original claim stated in the warrant of arrest does not exist. I then substitute the original claim with a completely different claim altogether. Can the warrant of arrest be upheld based on the amended claim and/or cause of action, even if it was not so pleaded initially when the action in rem commenced? This novel issue arose for the first time in The Jeil Crystal, where the Singapore Court of Appeal reversed the High Court’s decision and answered in the negative. Following that decision, if the warrant of arrest has already been executed, the warrant of arrest must be set aside when the plaintiff seeks to substitute an original claim with an amended claim in the statement of claim.

The Court of Appeal in the recent case ofWee Siew Bock laid down the legal proposition_x000D_ that "a dominant owner has no proprietary interest in the [servient] land". This, it is respectfully submitted, raises doubts as to the true nature of an easement. This particular proposition is unfortunate as it will be demonstrated that an easement is indeed a proprietary interest in the servient land.