12
Most read
17
Most read
22
Most read
RESTRAINT ON DEALINGS
Sharifah Zubaidah
LAW 3111 (Sem. 1 (09/10)
Section 3
WHAT ARE RESTRAINT ON
DEALINGS?
 Restrain = ‘to stop’,
 ‘to prevent’
 To prevent any
dealing from being
registered in the land
office in respect of a
particular land in
dispute.
TYPES OF RESTRAINT ON DEALINGS
 1) Lis Pendens
 2) Injunctions
 1) Caveats
 2) Prohibitory Order
Under Power of Court Under NLC
LIS PENDENS
 n. Latin for “a suit pending”
 A written notice that a lawsuit is pending with
regard to the land in question.
 Granted pursuant to s.25(2) and para. 6 of
Schedule 1, Courts of Judicature Act 1964. (UK)
BELLAMY V SABINE (1857)
 Lis pendens is based on the theory that so long as
title to land is being litigated in court, parties to
the litigation were incapable of dealing with the
land because otherwise the judgment of the court
would be frustrated.
POSITION OF LIS PENDENS IN
MALAYSIA
 Not applicable in Malaysia by virtue of s.6 of the
Civil Law Act 1956 as it is an incidence of
English land tenure system.
 No provision for recognition and registration of
lis pendens under NLC.
 S.417 NLC does not allow the court to direct the
Registrar to make entries on the Register of a
kind of transaction not provided for in the NLC.
T. DAMODARAN V CHOE KUAN HIM
[1979]
 The entry of a lis pendens on the RDT does not
operate as a restraint on dealings and will not
prevent a transferee from obtaining an
indefeasible title to the land.
INJUNCTION
 Granted by the court upon application of a party
in a legal proceeding (usually ex parte) to
preserve the status quo of the parties pending
settlement of the dispute.
 Governed by s.50 of the Specific Relief Act 1950.
 Available for caveator to preserve status quo in
proceedings but CANNOT BE REGISTERED on
RDT under NLC.
HENG BAK TEONG & ANOR. V NG AH
SEONG & ANOR. [1988]
 An injunction is a preventive relief granted at the
discretion of the court. A Registrar of the land
cannot register an injunction as a Prohibitory
Order on the RDT.
TAN LAY SOON V KAM MAH
THEATRE S/B [1992]
 An injunction is available to a party whose
private caveat has been removed by the court.
CAVEAT
MEANING: (BARRY V HEIDER (1914))
 “a means devised for the protection of a right of
the claimant pending proceedings in a competent
court to enforce the claim to an interest in the
land.
 s.5: ‘a registered caveat’
 Misleading, as a caveat is NOT REGISTERED. It
is lodged by the caveator and then endorsed on
the title.
MACON ENGINEERS S/B V GOH
HOOI YIN [1976]
 “ A caveat is a creature of statute and is in the
nature of a statutory injunction which has the
effect of prohibiting the registration of any
instrument of dealing.”
 -per Gill, CJ.
BUTLER V FAIRCLOUGH (1917)
 “It must now be taken to be well settled that
under the Australian system of registration of
titles to land the courts will recognise equitable
estates and rights except so far as they are
precluded from doing so by the statutes.
 This recognition is indeed the foundation of the
scheme of caveats which enable such rights to be
temporarily protected in anticipation of legal
proceedings.”
 (Purpose of Caveat)
FUNCTION OF A CAVEAT?
 “…to suspend the process of registration until
conflicting claims have been settled.
 It is a unilateral act and no person can create
rights in his favour nor enlarge or add to his
existing proprietary rights by means of a caveat.
The effect of a caveat is to prohibit the
registration…pertaining to any dealing with the
land in dispute so long as the caveat continues in
force.”
 -Syed Agil Barakbah, J. in Damodaran v
Vasudeva [1974] 1 MLJ 128.
 The caveat freezes the
register.
 Nothing can be done
on the land until the
caveat is lifted.
FUNCTIONS OF A CAVEAT:
 1) The caveat freezes the Register and prevents
the registration of any dealing on the land.
 2) The caveat is a scheme under the NLC to
protect unregistered titles and interests
pending registration of such title or interest.
 3) The caveat preserves the status quo of the
claimants to the land pending resolution of
the dispute.
 4) The caveat gives notice to the world that the
caveator has a claim in the land.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE
BETWEEN A CAVEAT AND AN
INJUNCTION?
 In Eng Mee Yong & Ors. v Letchumanan [1979],
the Privy Council pointed out that the
application for a caveat differs from an
application for an interlocutory injunction
because in an application for a caveat, a caveat
can be entered on a piece of land without any
supporting evidence as the Registrar acts in an
administrative capacity.
 In an application for an interlocutory injunction,
the applicant must show a strong arguable case
from the affidavit deposed by the applicant and
the judge exercises full judicial powers in this
respect.
FOO POH SANG V YUEN LAM S/B
[1989]
 The Pf. sold their land to the Df. but the
purchase price had not yet been paid in full.
 Meanwhile, the Df. had been registered as the
owner and had created charges on the land.
 Pf. lodged a caveat on the land to protect their
interests as the Df. had defaulted in paying the
purchase price.
 The chargee applied to the court to set aside the
caveat and succeeded.
 Pf. obtained an interlocutory injunction to
restrain the Df. from disposing the land.
FOO POH SANG:
 Chargee intervened to set aside the injunction on
the ground that since the caveat had been earlier
removed, the injunction should also be removed
as it was merely a caveat under the guise of an
injunction.
 HELD:
 The injunction should not be removed but was
varied to protect the interest of the chargee.
JUSTICE PEH SWEE CHIN ON
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CAVEAT
AND AN INJUNCTION IN FOO POH
SANG:
 “…there are real, though subtle, differences
between the two. A caveator when called upon to
justify his caveat, would have to satisfy the court
that he has a caveatable interest in the land in
question (set out u-s.323(1) NLC). An injunction
can restrain a person from doing anything, not
just concerning land…a caveatable interest is,
ofcourse, a relevant but by no means sine qua
non for an injunction to issue.”
TYPES OF CAVEATS:
 1) Registrar’s Caveat (s.319)
 2) Private Caveat (s.322)
 3) Lienholder’s Caveat (s.330)
 4) Trust Caveat (s.322)

More Related Content

PPT
charges 4
PDF
3) lien holder caveat
PPTX
PPT
prohibitory order
PPTX
Land Law 1 slides LAROW
PPTX
LAND LAW 1 slides dealings part 1
PPT
Lien and lien holder's caveat
charges 4
3) lien holder caveat
prohibitory order
Land Law 1 slides LAROW
LAND LAW 1 slides dealings part 1
Lien and lien holder's caveat

What's hot (20)

PPTX
LAND LAW 1 slides rights and powers of the state authority 2014
PPT
Charges 1
PPTX
Ll1 slides adverse possession
DOCX
PPTX
LAND LAW 1 Dealings part 3 easements
PPT
Challenging land acquisition proceedings
PPTX
Security dealing remedies for registered chargee
PPT
Dealings and registration
PPT
State authority 1
PPT
Land law ii (charge general)
PDF
Registrar's Caveat
PDF
1) registrar caveat
PPTX
LAND LAW 1 INDEFEASIBILITY PART 2 2014
PPT
charges 2
PPT
private caveats
PDF
Lien Holder's Caveat
PPTX
LAND LAW 1 slides registration of dealings 2014
PPT
registrars caveat
PPT
Private caveat
PPT
Grounds for challenging compulsory land acquisition
LAND LAW 1 slides rights and powers of the state authority 2014
Charges 1
Ll1 slides adverse possession
LAND LAW 1 Dealings part 3 easements
Challenging land acquisition proceedings
Security dealing remedies for registered chargee
Dealings and registration
State authority 1
Land law ii (charge general)
Registrar's Caveat
1) registrar caveat
LAND LAW 1 INDEFEASIBILITY PART 2 2014
charges 2
private caveats
Lien Holder's Caveat
LAND LAW 1 slides registration of dealings 2014
registrars caveat
Private caveat
Grounds for challenging compulsory land acquisition
Ad

Similar to restraint on dealings (20)

PPTX
Ll1 slides dealings part 3 easements
PPT
PDF
Restrain on Dealings
PDF
LAND LAW CASES
PDF
Popat and kotecha_property_vs_state_bank_of_india_staff_..._on_29_august,_2005
PDF
Punjab-Pre-emption-Act-1991-1-30112022-115021am.pdf
PDF
G.R. No. 231290.pdf
PPTX
Ll1 slides revision
DOCX
Land law task 1
PDF
Private Caveat
DOCX
Adverse possession review
SXW
Rcs no 332 98 (possession)
DOCX
241585426 cases-vii
PDF
PDF
Compilation of Judgments wherein it is held that "Suit is not maintainable"
PPTX
easement Act 1882 Comprehensive Analysis of the Easement Act, 1882: Understan...
PDF
INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN v SRI BALA AND CO..pdf
PDF
2010 civil-mock-bar-answers
PDF
TORRENS SYSTEM - LAND LAW
Ll1 slides dealings part 3 easements
Restrain on Dealings
LAND LAW CASES
Popat and kotecha_property_vs_state_bank_of_india_staff_..._on_29_august,_2005
Punjab-Pre-emption-Act-1991-1-30112022-115021am.pdf
G.R. No. 231290.pdf
Ll1 slides revision
Land law task 1
Private Caveat
Adverse possession review
Rcs no 332 98 (possession)
241585426 cases-vii
Compilation of Judgments wherein it is held that "Suit is not maintainable"
easement Act 1882 Comprehensive Analysis of the Easement Act, 1882: Understan...
INDIAN EVANGELICAL LUTHERAN v SRI BALA AND CO..pdf
2010 civil-mock-bar-answers
TORRENS SYSTEM - LAND LAW
Ad

More from Hafizul Mukhlis (20)

DOCX
Fe practice 4 collaborative learning among msian students (1)
DOCX
Fe practice 3 social networking (1)
DOCX
Fe practice 2 coping strat (1)
DOC
Rp sample full text (lily)
DOCX
Arrrsa mid sem sample test anxiety
PPT
Subject verb agreement
PPT
Week 10 abstracts 2
PPT
Week 10 conclusion grammar notes
PPT
Week 10 the conclusion
PPT
Week 9 writing discussion
PPT
Week 8 presenting data in charts, graphs, and tables 2
PPTX
Week8 writing the results
PPSX
Week6 7a- developing a questionnaire
PPT
Week 6 7c - language in procedures & method
PPT
Week5b writing research questions
PPT
Week5a writing statement of the problem & general purpose 2
PPT
Week4g pptslides in text citation- quoting 4
PPT
Week4f pptslides in text citation - summarising
PPT
Week4e pptslides in text citation-synthesizing 2
PPSX
Week4d pptslides writing with coherence
Fe practice 4 collaborative learning among msian students (1)
Fe practice 3 social networking (1)
Fe practice 2 coping strat (1)
Rp sample full text (lily)
Arrrsa mid sem sample test anxiety
Subject verb agreement
Week 10 abstracts 2
Week 10 conclusion grammar notes
Week 10 the conclusion
Week 9 writing discussion
Week 8 presenting data in charts, graphs, and tables 2
Week8 writing the results
Week6 7a- developing a questionnaire
Week 6 7c - language in procedures & method
Week5b writing research questions
Week5a writing statement of the problem & general purpose 2
Week4g pptslides in text citation- quoting 4
Week4f pptslides in text citation - summarising
Week4e pptslides in text citation-synthesizing 2
Week4d pptslides writing with coherence

Recently uploaded (20)

PDF
Common Estate Planning Mistakes to Avoid in Wisconsin
PPTX
Unit 2: LOCAL SELF GOVERNANCE AND VILLAGES
PPTX
Company Law Shares and Debentures, Members
PDF
LATEST AMENDMENT COMPANY LAW 2016 FOR MALAYSIAN LAW
PPTX
Cyber Bullying & harassment on social media.pptx
PPTX
ADR-Lecture-ten-1 North South University
PPTX
Innovations in Business Debt Collection Practices
PPTX
Inventions not Patentable u_s 3 & 4.pptx
PPTX
the 19th century as rizal’s context.pptx
PDF
Manipur-Report.pdf governance failure in Manipur
PDF
Divorce Attorney Chicago – Guiding You Through Every Step
PDF
UNIT-7_ IPR_Final PPT.pdf (Applicable for India)
DOCX
Political Science Election Part One.docx
PPTX
Introduction to Patents & Patentability criteria.pptx
PPTX
Types_of_Partnership_1932.pptx legal law
PPTX
white collar crime .pptx power function and punishment
PDF
Case Digest_ G.R. No. 45081 - Angara vs. Electoral Commission.pdf
PPTX
Constitution of india module one of ktu
PPT
Judicial Process of Law Chapter 2 Law and Legal Systems
PPTX
toppdf_ sa understanding te1753419803952.pptx
Common Estate Planning Mistakes to Avoid in Wisconsin
Unit 2: LOCAL SELF GOVERNANCE AND VILLAGES
Company Law Shares and Debentures, Members
LATEST AMENDMENT COMPANY LAW 2016 FOR MALAYSIAN LAW
Cyber Bullying & harassment on social media.pptx
ADR-Lecture-ten-1 North South University
Innovations in Business Debt Collection Practices
Inventions not Patentable u_s 3 & 4.pptx
the 19th century as rizal’s context.pptx
Manipur-Report.pdf governance failure in Manipur
Divorce Attorney Chicago – Guiding You Through Every Step
UNIT-7_ IPR_Final PPT.pdf (Applicable for India)
Political Science Election Part One.docx
Introduction to Patents & Patentability criteria.pptx
Types_of_Partnership_1932.pptx legal law
white collar crime .pptx power function and punishment
Case Digest_ G.R. No. 45081 - Angara vs. Electoral Commission.pdf
Constitution of india module one of ktu
Judicial Process of Law Chapter 2 Law and Legal Systems
toppdf_ sa understanding te1753419803952.pptx

restraint on dealings

  • 1. RESTRAINT ON DEALINGS Sharifah Zubaidah LAW 3111 (Sem. 1 (09/10) Section 3
  • 2. WHAT ARE RESTRAINT ON DEALINGS?  Restrain = ‘to stop’,  ‘to prevent’  To prevent any dealing from being registered in the land office in respect of a particular land in dispute.
  • 3. TYPES OF RESTRAINT ON DEALINGS  1) Lis Pendens  2) Injunctions  1) Caveats  2) Prohibitory Order Under Power of Court Under NLC
  • 4. LIS PENDENS  n. Latin for “a suit pending”  A written notice that a lawsuit is pending with regard to the land in question.  Granted pursuant to s.25(2) and para. 6 of Schedule 1, Courts of Judicature Act 1964. (UK)
  • 5. BELLAMY V SABINE (1857)  Lis pendens is based on the theory that so long as title to land is being litigated in court, parties to the litigation were incapable of dealing with the land because otherwise the judgment of the court would be frustrated.
  • 6. POSITION OF LIS PENDENS IN MALAYSIA  Not applicable in Malaysia by virtue of s.6 of the Civil Law Act 1956 as it is an incidence of English land tenure system.  No provision for recognition and registration of lis pendens under NLC.  S.417 NLC does not allow the court to direct the Registrar to make entries on the Register of a kind of transaction not provided for in the NLC.
  • 7. T. DAMODARAN V CHOE KUAN HIM [1979]  The entry of a lis pendens on the RDT does not operate as a restraint on dealings and will not prevent a transferee from obtaining an indefeasible title to the land.
  • 8. INJUNCTION  Granted by the court upon application of a party in a legal proceeding (usually ex parte) to preserve the status quo of the parties pending settlement of the dispute.  Governed by s.50 of the Specific Relief Act 1950.  Available for caveator to preserve status quo in proceedings but CANNOT BE REGISTERED on RDT under NLC.
  • 9. HENG BAK TEONG & ANOR. V NG AH SEONG & ANOR. [1988]  An injunction is a preventive relief granted at the discretion of the court. A Registrar of the land cannot register an injunction as a Prohibitory Order on the RDT.
  • 10. TAN LAY SOON V KAM MAH THEATRE S/B [1992]  An injunction is available to a party whose private caveat has been removed by the court.
  • 12. MEANING: (BARRY V HEIDER (1914))  “a means devised for the protection of a right of the claimant pending proceedings in a competent court to enforce the claim to an interest in the land.  s.5: ‘a registered caveat’  Misleading, as a caveat is NOT REGISTERED. It is lodged by the caveator and then endorsed on the title.
  • 13. MACON ENGINEERS S/B V GOH HOOI YIN [1976]  “ A caveat is a creature of statute and is in the nature of a statutory injunction which has the effect of prohibiting the registration of any instrument of dealing.”  -per Gill, CJ.
  • 14. BUTLER V FAIRCLOUGH (1917)  “It must now be taken to be well settled that under the Australian system of registration of titles to land the courts will recognise equitable estates and rights except so far as they are precluded from doing so by the statutes.  This recognition is indeed the foundation of the scheme of caveats which enable such rights to be temporarily protected in anticipation of legal proceedings.”  (Purpose of Caveat)
  • 15. FUNCTION OF A CAVEAT?  “…to suspend the process of registration until conflicting claims have been settled.  It is a unilateral act and no person can create rights in his favour nor enlarge or add to his existing proprietary rights by means of a caveat. The effect of a caveat is to prohibit the registration…pertaining to any dealing with the land in dispute so long as the caveat continues in force.”  -Syed Agil Barakbah, J. in Damodaran v Vasudeva [1974] 1 MLJ 128.
  • 16.  The caveat freezes the register.  Nothing can be done on the land until the caveat is lifted.
  • 17. FUNCTIONS OF A CAVEAT:  1) The caveat freezes the Register and prevents the registration of any dealing on the land.  2) The caveat is a scheme under the NLC to protect unregistered titles and interests pending registration of such title or interest.  3) The caveat preserves the status quo of the claimants to the land pending resolution of the dispute.  4) The caveat gives notice to the world that the caveator has a claim in the land.
  • 18. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CAVEAT AND AN INJUNCTION?  In Eng Mee Yong & Ors. v Letchumanan [1979], the Privy Council pointed out that the application for a caveat differs from an application for an interlocutory injunction because in an application for a caveat, a caveat can be entered on a piece of land without any supporting evidence as the Registrar acts in an administrative capacity.  In an application for an interlocutory injunction, the applicant must show a strong arguable case from the affidavit deposed by the applicant and the judge exercises full judicial powers in this respect.
  • 19. FOO POH SANG V YUEN LAM S/B [1989]  The Pf. sold their land to the Df. but the purchase price had not yet been paid in full.  Meanwhile, the Df. had been registered as the owner and had created charges on the land.  Pf. lodged a caveat on the land to protect their interests as the Df. had defaulted in paying the purchase price.  The chargee applied to the court to set aside the caveat and succeeded.  Pf. obtained an interlocutory injunction to restrain the Df. from disposing the land.
  • 20. FOO POH SANG:  Chargee intervened to set aside the injunction on the ground that since the caveat had been earlier removed, the injunction should also be removed as it was merely a caveat under the guise of an injunction.  HELD:  The injunction should not be removed but was varied to protect the interest of the chargee.
  • 21. JUSTICE PEH SWEE CHIN ON DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A CAVEAT AND AN INJUNCTION IN FOO POH SANG:  “…there are real, though subtle, differences between the two. A caveator when called upon to justify his caveat, would have to satisfy the court that he has a caveatable interest in the land in question (set out u-s.323(1) NLC). An injunction can restrain a person from doing anything, not just concerning land…a caveatable interest is, ofcourse, a relevant but by no means sine qua non for an injunction to issue.”
  • 22. TYPES OF CAVEATS:  1) Registrar’s Caveat (s.319)  2) Private Caveat (s.322)  3) Lienholder’s Caveat (s.330)  4) Trust Caveat (s.322)