1. ) NOR AZIZAN BINTI IBRAHIM 2. ) NOR AIDA BINTI IBRAHIM v ABADAN BIN JASMON

Case Significance

Illustrates the court's approach to preserving a private caveat under the National Land Code where it protects an arguable interest and the status quo pending determination of a related matrimonial-asset claim.

This High Court decision at Johor Bahru concerns an application to remove a private caveat lodged over land, where the caveat protected an asserted matrimonial interest. The land was registered in the names of the two plaintiffs, sisters, each holding a half share. The defendant, who had been the husband of the first plaintiff, lodged a private caveat over the land, claiming an interest in it as a matrimonial asset. The first plaintiff and the defendant were divorced shortly afterwards, and, by a sale and purchase agreement, the plaintiffs agreed to sell the property to purchasers. The plaintiffs applied under the National Land Code to remove the caveat, arguing that the defendant had no caveatable interest within the meaning of section 323.

The governing question was whether the defendant held a caveatable interest, that is, a registrable interest or a claim to such an interest in the land, sufficient to support the caveat, as opposed to a mere personal or matrimonial claim. The court had regard to authority distinguishing between interests that will and will not support a caveat, including the principle that the mere existence of an option, without more, may be insufficient in law to support a caveat, and it examined whether the present facts fell within or outside those principles.

The court found the facts distinguishable in the defendant's favour. It noted that the first plaintiff had been notified of the defendant's claim to the land through a draft letter, dated shortly before the divorce, that was in her possession, and it observed that the coincidence of the divorce and the sale occurring on the same date raised suspicion. While the substantive matrimonial-asset claim would fall to be determined in the appropriate forum, the court took the view that the caveat served to protect the status quo pending the resolution of that claim, and that the defendant had a caveatable interest sufficient to retain it. It accordingly dismissed the plaintiffs' application and maintained the caveat. The judgment illustrates the court's approach to preserving a caveat where it protects an arguable interest and the status quo pending determination of a related claim.