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. 

Recent Post

DISTRIBUTION OF ASSETS – LEGAL RIGHTS OF CHILDREN BORN IN UNREGISTERED CUSTOMARY MARRIAGES TO INHERIT INTESTATE ESTATES

Born to parents in an unregistered Chinese customary marriage, an individual was deemed illegitimate following their father’s intestate death. The key legal issue is whether this individual can inherit under the Distribution Act 1958 (DA). The DA does not restrict inheritance to legitimate children only; it includes all bloodline descendants. Therefore, the individual qualifies as ‘issue’ and is entitled to inherit their father’s estate despite questions of legitimacy.

Read More »

FAMILY LAW – ANALYZING THE EFFICIENCY OF DIVORCE PROCEEDINGS IN CASES OF ADULTERY WITHOUT CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES

A husband filed for divorce due to living apart from his wife for two years, while the wife attributed the breakdown to adultery, involving the alleged adulteress without seeking damages. This raises questions about the necessity of addressing adultery in divorce when no compensation is sought, as Section 54 of the Law Reform (Marriage and Divorce) Act 1976 emphasizes irretrievable breakdown without fault.

Read More »

ROAD TRAFFIC – DUTY OF DIRECTOR GENERAL OF ROAD TRANSPORT

In a legal spotlight, X’s acquisition of a cloned vehicle unknowingly, due to lapses in the Road Transport Department’s record-keeping, raises questions about statutory duties and public trust. The case underscores the importance of stringent vehicle registry maintenance to prevent ownership of unlawfully modified vehicles.

Read More »

INDUSTRIAL LAW – NAVIGATING THE LEGALITIES OF RETRENCHMENT

The dismissal of X by Company ABC, citing economic downturns, presents a compelling case on the complexities of employment termination and retrenchment legality. X contested his redundancy, claiming his role in property management and services was unaffected by the property development market’s challenges. This case probes into the legitimacy of retrenchment under economic duress and the employer’s duty to act in good faith, as guided by Section 20(3) of the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The burden rests on Company ABC to prove the necessity and genuineness of X’s redundancy, with failure to do so possibly leading to a verdict of unjustified termination. This scenario underscores the critical importance of evidence and intention in retrenchment cases, as reflected in precedents like Akilan a/l Subramanian v. Prima Awam (M) Sdn Bhd.

Read More »

PROPERTY LAW – LEGAL IMPLICATIONS OF SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT BREACHES AND THE RIGHT TO OFFSET IN MALAYSIAN PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS

In the realm of Malaysian property transactions, the intricacies of Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the enforcement of Liquidated Ascertained Damages (LAD) play pivotal roles in safeguarding the interests of both developers and purchasers. This article delves into the legal framework governing the rights and obligations of parties involved in property transactions, particularly focusing on the consequences of contractual breaches and the conditions under which a purchaser can exercise the right to offset against LAD. Through the examination of relevant case law and statutory provisions, we illuminate the legal pathways available for resolving disputes arising from the failure to adhere to the terms of SPAs, thereby offering insights into the equitable administration of justice in the context of Malaysian property law.

Read More »

WINDING-UP – OFFICIAL RECEIVER AND LIQUIDATOR (“ORL”)

In cases of compulsory winding up, the court would appoint a liquidator under s.478 of the Companies Act 2016 (“CA 2016”) to expeditiously recover and realise the assets of the wound-up company for the distribution of dividends to creditors and administer any outstanding matters involving………..

Read More »
en_USEnglish
× How can I help you?