VISIBER SDN BHD v 1. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Petaling 2. ) KOK LOW KAU

Case Significance

Illustrates the approach to an application to withdraw and cancel a Registrar's Caveat under sections 320, 321 and 417 of the National Land Code, and the court's reluctance to grant that relief, and associated remedies against a private party, where the applicant fails to establish its entitlement.

This High Court decision at Shah Alam concerns an application to withdraw and cancel a Registrar's Caveat entered over land, together with further relief sought against a private party. The plaintiff, Visiber Sdn Bhd, applied by originating summons under sections 320, 321 and 417 of the National Land Code 1965 for the immediate withdrawal and cancellation of a Registrar's Caveat affecting the land, and, in addition, sought general, exemplary and injunctive relief specifically directed against the second defendant, the first defendant being the Land Administrator. A striking feature of the proceedings, which the court noted, was that each side accused the other of resorting to a "backdoor approach" to achieve its objectives, underscoring the contentious and tactical character of the dispute. The two principal issues were whether the plaintiff was entitled to have the Registrar's Caveat withdrawn and cancelled, and whether it was entitled to the general, exemplary and injunctive relief claimed against the second defendant. A Registrar's Caveat under section 320 of the National Land Code is entered by the Registrar to protect particular interests, including against dealings that may be improper, and its withdrawal or cancellation is not a matter of course but requires the applicant to satisfy the court that the caveat should not remain. Applying the relevant legal principles to the facts and the competing allegations, the court found no merit in the plaintiff's case as presented. It dismissed the originating summons and ordered the plaintiff to pay costs of RM10,000 to each of the defendants. The judgment is a useful illustration of the approach to an application to remove a Registrar's Caveat under the National Land Code and of the court's reluctance to grant such relief, and associated remedies against a private party, where the applicant has not made out its entitlement. The judgment also reflects the court's care, where each side accuses the other of a tactical or backdoor manoeuvre, to test the substance of the competing positions against the statutory framework rather than the rhetoric, and its insistence that a plaintiff seeking to disturb a caveat entered to protect an interest bears the burden of demonstrating a clear entitlement to the relief it claims.