Malaysia Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Wrongful caveat

Legal area

Court

8 Aug 2025

SILVERON BUILDERS SDN BHD YHL PROPERTY SDN BHD

Citation

J-02(IM)(NCvC)-194-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)
Court

IM
Case number

J-02(IM)(NCvC)-194-02/2024 (Mahkamah Rayuan)

The Court held that the respondent was entitled under section 329(1) NLC to recover the actual Additional Financing Costs it paid to indemnify the Developer for losses caused by the appellant's wrongful caveat because the caveat was wrongfully entered, the losses were actual, reasonably foreseeable and properly mitigated; there was no need for an express contractual indemnity in the JVA to recover statutory compensation; High Court award of RM748,931.37 with 5% p.a. interest from 15.07.2020 until full payment was correct and was upheld.
3 Feb 2025

RIDZUAN BIN SULAIMAN PERBADANAN PENGURUSAN SUBANG SQUARE

Citation

BA-24NCvC-1931-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24NCvC-1931-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant had no caveatable interest because its claim was a contractual debt and not a registrable interest; therefore the entry of the private caveat was wrongful and without reasonable cause under s329 NLC; the plaintiff proved on the balance of probabilities that the wrongful caveat caused the cancellation of a sale and thus may have suffered damage, and an inquiry for assessment of damages under s329 is ordered; permanent injunction was not necessary as the plaintiff has since sold the property.
28 Apr 2024

LONG KEE PILING WORKS SDN. BHD. TANG CHEAH WEE

Citation

JA-24NCvC-32-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

JA-24NCvC-32-01/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Court found both defendants lacked caveatable interest when lodging private caveats and thus acted wrongfully under s.329 National Land Code; sale agreement was valid because board and EGM approvals existed and no evidence showed invalidity; losses caused by the caveats were foreseeable and provable and were quantified as specific items; court awarded RM308,908.74 in damages to the plaintiff, to be borne equally by the two defendants.
23 Apr 2024

Ng Yow Leong Luu Wing Tack @ Lu Wing Tack

Citation

CB-24NCvC-281-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

CB-24NCvC-281-10/2023 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Defendant wrongfully filed a private caveat despite an existing High Court declaration of plaintiff's ownership and absence of a stay; plaintiff proved liability and quantum by unchallenged invoices and receipts and is therefore entitled to compensation of RM13,435 under s329 Kanun Tanah Negara 2020; exemplary damages not warranted; plaintiff also awarded costs of RM5,000 subject to allocatur.
22 Jan 2024

1. ) Siva Kumar A/L Jeyapalan 2. ) AMMSA Property Sdn. Bhd. Firwas Sdn. Bhd PIHAK KETIGA 1. ) THEVANDRAN A/L K.RAGAVAN 2. ) Shoba A/p Govindasamy 3. ) Jasim Sura Puthucheary (D2 Dlm Tuntuan Balas Thevandran)

Citation

WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-677-10/2018 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the court found negotiations were aborted, no binding SPA was concluded with Firwas, the defendants and associated agents acted fraudulently and in conspiracy, the caveat was wrongfully lodged; accordingly plaintiffs' claims and Thevan's counterclaim dismissed, Firwas's counterclaim allowed, removal of caveat ordered and damages (general, exemplary) and indemnity costs awarded.
20 Sept 2022

ORION TOWER SDN BHD SHANGHAI CITY SDN BHD

Citation

WA-24NCvC-746-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-746-04/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved only a discrete delay in financing directly attributable to the wrongful caveat; majority of claimed sums were unproven, speculative or unrelated to the caveat, therefore only RM20,000 is awarded for financing delay; Defendant's procedural objections failed because it did not seek trial or cross-examination at the directions hearing or under Order 38 r.3; costs previously fixed cannot be reopened.
12 Aug 2022

Tan Sook Fuen Lim Tiew Sin

Citation

WA-22NCvC-310-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-22NCvC-310-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

On the balance of probabilities the totality of pre-contractual and post-contractual conduct (payment of full purchase price before execution, absence of searches, no possession, delayed enforcement and caveat, earlier funding arrangements and repayment evidence RM638,000) established a common intention that the Sale and Purchase Agreement was a sham securing a loan; the transaction therefore contravened the Moneylenders Act and Contracts Act and is unenforceable; plaintiff had no caveatable interest and caveat must be removed.
18 Mar 2022

CHONG KIAM PEH 1. ) GOH SOO GUAT 2. ) LOU CHEE HOCK

Citation

BA-24-4-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

BA-24-4-03/2021 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff proved payment of the full purchase price and redemption of the mortgage and therefore had the status of an aggrieved bona fide purchaser; defendants failed to demonstrate any caveatable interest or to rebut the affidavit evidence; the caveats were wrongfully entered to obstruct registration; accordingly the court ordered removal of the private caveat(s) and ancillary relief under ss.327 and 329 NLC.
6 Oct 2021

BANK PEMBANGUNAN MALAYSIA BERHAD (NO SYARIKAT: 197301003074) (16562-K) KAUTHAR VENTURE CAPITAL SDN BHD (NO SYARIKAT: 198801001297) (168654-A)

Citation

WA-24NCVC-864-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCVC-864-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

Plaintiff failed to prove causation because the sale was conditional on independent prerequisites (State Authority consent and court approval) which were unfulfilled and not shown to depend on removal of the caveat; therefore the claimed late payment charges were not caused by the caveat and are not recoverable, but nominal damages of RM10,000 are payable.
26 Aug 2021

LIM SIAU YIN (NRIC NO.: 820907-08-5916) QUAH KAW CHERNG (NRIC NO: 751123-10-5521)

Citation

WA-24NCvC-912-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)
Court

High Court
Case number

WA-24NCvC-912-06/2020 (Mahkamah Tinggi)

The court found on the balance of probabilities that the defendant wrongfully entered the caveat and failed to rebut the plaintiff's evidence of loss; accordingly, under section 329 NLC the defendant was liable to pay RM120,368.57 in damages, interest at 4% per annum from the day until realization and costs of RM5,000.