Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

LAND LAW – CAVEATS– CAVEATABLE INTEREST

In brief 

 It’s been said that putting a caveat on a piece of land or property is a piece of cake. However, what many people don’t seem to grasp is simply submitting a caveat without first determining whether they have a ‘caveatable interest’ in doing so would very always result in the caveat being removed or deemed void.

Q. Will this be an issue in certain circumstances?

A.. Consider a situation in which the ownership of land and/or property has yet to be decided, but you think you have an interest in both. Other persons, for some reason, are claiming that they, too, have similar interests in the land and/or property. As a result, you decide to file a caveat in order to maintain the status quo until the ownership interest in the property and/or land is determined. Caveats, on the other hand, are not instruments that provide any rights or interests in the land or property in question.

Who can enter a private caveat? 

  • There are just three situations under which a person can file a private caveat under Section 323(1) of the National Land Code: 1) A person claiming title or interest in the land; 2) A person claiming beneficial title to the land; and 3) A person claiming beneficial title to the land on behalf of a minor.
  •  Furthermore, the judge said in the case of Luggage Distributors (M) Sdn Bhd v Tan Hor Teng @ Tan Tien Chi & Anor [1995] 3 CLJ 520 that the individual who is entitled to submit a private caveat has a “caveatable interest” in the abovementioned parcel of property. For example, if you have acquired a property through a legal SPA and paid the required deposit, as in the case of Macon Engineers Bhd v Goh Hooi Yin [1976] 2 MLJ 53, you have caveatable interest.

What defines a ‘caveatable interest’?

  •  Caveatable interest is a type of interest that isn’t always a ‘registered interest.’ To put it another way, one does not require a formal or official registered interest (such as a title) in the land and/or property in order to have a caveatable interest. However, as long as the caveator (“the person lodging the caveat”) can show that they hold a title to, or any ‘registrable interest’ in, the split and/or undivided part of the land and/or property as specified in s 323(1)(a) National Land Code, it is sufficient. 
  •  Moving on, what is considered a registrable interest? In the case of Score Options Sdn Bhd v Mexaland Development Sdn Bhd [2012] 6 MLJ 475, a prominent Federal Court ruling, defined this as a “existing interest in the property or possessing a claim to such existing interest, but not any possible interest or interest in the future.”

Is it possible to remove a private caveat? 

  •  Prior to its expiry, a private caveat can be removed by the caveator himself under Section 325 of the National Land Code, or by a person with registered title or interest in the property in question under Section 326 of the NLC, or by a person who has been authorised by the Court to remove such caveat, most often on the grounds that the private caveat lodged has adversely affected his/her rights or interest in the said property under Section 327 of the NLC. 
  •  Caveators who lodge or fail to remove a private caveat incorrectly or without proper cause will be liable to pay compensation to the caveatee or any person negatively affected by the lodgement of such private caveat under S.329 of the NLC. Therefore, the burden of proof will be on the caveator to show why the private caveat should be lodged or renewed. 
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us