ART J ORIGINAL SDN BHD v 1. ) PENGARAH TANAH DAN GALIAN NEGERI KEDAH 2. ) Pentadbir Tanah Daerah Langkawi 3. ) PENDAFTAR HAKMILIK TANAH & GALIAN KEDAH 4. ) Kerajaan Negeri Kedah 5. ) KHAW LE NA (menjalankan amalan guaman dibawah nama dan gaya Tetuan Le Siew & Co) 6. ) RAHIM BIN ISMAIL 7. ) NOR AZAHAR BIN ZAINOL 8. ) Muhammad Izat Marican Bin Nor Azahar

Case Significance

Illustrates the liability of land authorities in negligence for inaccurate land-registry information — here an omitted Malay Reservation endorsement following digitalisation — where a purchaser relies on a title search to its detriment and suffers loss that would not have arisen but for the omission.

This High Court decision at Alor Setar, given after a full trial, concerns a claim in negligence against state land authorities arising from a defective title search. The plaintiff company had purchased land, completed the conveyancing, paid the full price and had the title transferred into its name, only to find later that its ownership was declared null and void because the land carried Malay Reservation status — a status that had never appeared in the title search report obtained before completion. The omission had come about through a failure of the Land Office staff during the digitalisation of the title deeds under the computerised land registration system. The plaintiff sued for damages and declaratory relief. The case raised questions of limitation — including when the cause of action accrued and the effect of the Public Authorities Protection Act 1948 — of the Land Administrator's statutory duty of care in maintaining accurate registry information, of causation and loss, of res judicata, and of whether unjust enrichment afforded the state authorities a defence. The court found that the plaintiff's loss flowed directly from the omission and the lackadaisical conduct of the officers concerned: but for their failure to record the reservation status, the loss would not have arisen. Holding that it was just and proper that the plaintiff be compensated at least for the price it had paid, the court allowed the claim and ordered the state land authorities to pay the plaintiff RM1,800,000, together with costs of RM10,000, expressing the hope that the judgment would serve as a wake-up call to public officers entrusted with the land registry. In reaching that result the court was not deterred by the arguments on limitation, res judicata or unjust enrichment raised by the authorities, holding that none of them answered the plaintiff's established loss flowing from the inaccurate search. The judgment illustrates the liability of land authorities in negligence for inaccurate registry information relied upon by a purchaser to its detriment.