Consequentially there will also be an order to assess damages by the Registrar

Consequentially there will also be an order to assess

This preview shows page 34 - 36 out of 80 pages.

Consequentially, there will also be an order to assess damages by the Registrar of the High Court, Melaka, to be paid by the respondent to the appellant under s. 329(1) of the National Land Code 1965. The private caveat Jilid 75 Folio 99 entered by the respondent against Lot 1915 is to be removed forthwith and ex parte order for extension of the caveat is set aside. In Pembangunan Wang Kita Sdn Bhd v. Fry-Fry Marketing Services Sdn Bhd [1998] 2 CLJ Supp 96 Low Hop Bing J (as he then was) ordered removal of the caveat and damages to be paid by the wrongful caveator. The learned judge said at p. 106: By reason of above, I hold that the defendant’s entry of the private caveat is wrongful as the defendant had not disclosed a caveatable interest in its application (Form 19B) under s. 323(1) of the National Land Code. Hence the defendant is unable to cross the first hurdle. I order that the private caveat be hereby L A W
Image of page 34
xxxv [2013] 1 CLJ Current Law Journal removed forthwith, without the necessity of going further. I also make a consequential order that damages be awarded to the plaintiff, to be assessed by the Registrar of this Court. Costs to be taxed and paid by the defendant to the plaintiff. Burden To Prove Damages To recover damages, the burden of proving loss or damage rests on the caveatee, ie, the person or body whose land or interest is bound by the private caveat. In practice, the task of proving loss or damage suffered is not always easy. For example, in Mawar Biru Sdn Bhd v. Lim Kai Chew [1992] 1 LNS 22, the defendant land proprietor did not recover any damages as he had failed to prove any loss for the wrongful entry of the private caveat by the plaintiff purchaser. In Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd v. Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor [1994] 2 CLJ 796, a case concerning wrongful termination of contract for purchase of land, the High Court had awarded a total sum of about RM16 million in damages. On appeal, in Tan Sri Khoo Teck Puat & Anor v. Plenitude Holdings Sdn Bhd [1995] 1 CLJ 15, the Federal Court set aside the judgment of PS Gill J (as he then was) and reduced the huge damages of some RM16 million to a mere RM10 as nominal damages mainly because the land had appreciated in value. In the course of his judgment Edgar Joseph Jr. FCJ said at p. 31: At the end of the day, the purchaser got the land worth approximately RM120,000,000, for which they had paid only RM47,939,958. No Extension If Caveat Cancelled In Manian Kandasamy v. Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Raub & Anor [2011] 7 CLJ 583, the Court of Appeal refused to extend the caveat which had been cancelled by the Land Administrator. Zaleha Zahari JCA, in delivering the judgment of the Court of Appeal, said at p. 591: [15] The popular meaning attributed to the word “extend” in s. 326(2) of the Code is that it enlarges or gives further duration to any existing right rather than re-vests an expired right. We are in agreement with the judicial commissioner that the court’s power to extend a caveat under s. 326(2) of the Code was only exercisable where a caveat is still “alive” and was no longer exercisable after a caveat had been cancelled.
Image of page 35
Image of page 36

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture

  • Left Quote Icon

    Student Picture