Ho Soo Fong v Standard Chartered Bank: Wrongful Caveat, Damages for Refusal to Withdraw Caveat

Ho Soo Fong and Lin Siew Khim appealed against the High Court's decision regarding damages under Section 128(1) of the Land Titles Act, arising from Standard Chartered Bank's refusal to withdraw a caveat on a property at 26F Poh Huat Road, which allegedly led to the mortgagee sale of another property at 179 Syed Alwi Road. The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, finding that the bank's refusal was a cause of the loss and that the loss was reasonably foreseeable. The matter was remitted to the Registrar for assessment of damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal regarding damages for Standard Chartered Bank's wrongful refusal to withdraw a caveat, leading to a mortgagee sale. Appeal allowed.

1.7 Decision Date

28 January 2007

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Ho Soo Fong	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	Christopher Chong Chi Chuin
Lin Siew Khim	Appellant	Individual	Appeal allowed	Won	Christopher Chong Chi Chuin
Standard Chartered Bank	Respondent	Corporation	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Loo Ngan Chor, Gan Theng Chong, Jiang Ke Yue

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Chan Sek Keong	Chief Justice	Yes
Lee Seiu Kin	Judge	No
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Justice of the Court of Appeal	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Christopher Chong Chi Chuin	Legal Solutions LLC
Loo Ngan Chor	Lee & Lee
Gan Theng Chong	Lee & Lee
Jiang Ke Yue	Lee & Lee

4. Facts

Appellants were joint owners of 26F Poh Huat Road.
Appellants sought to refinance properties, including 26F Poh Huat Road, with Standard Chartered Bank.
Standard Chartered Bank lodged a caveat against 26F Poh Huat Road.
The loan facilities were not activated due to pending court actions.
Appellants cancelled the loan facilities and requested withdrawal of the caveats.
Standard Chartered Bank refused to withdraw the caveats due to unpaid cancellation fees.
Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd offered a loan facility secured by 26F Poh Huat Road, but it was not taken up due to the caveat.
BEA, as mortgagee, sold 179 Syed Alwi Road due to outstanding debt.
Appellants claimed the forced sale of 179 Syed Alwi Road was due to the wrongful caveat.

5. Formal Citations

Ho Soo Fong and Another v Standard Chartered Bank, CA 16/2006, [2007] SGCA 4
Ho Soo Fong v Standard Chartered Bank, , [2006] 3 SLR 263
Ho Soo Fong v Standard Chartered Bank, , [2005] 1 SLR 316

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2001-03-01	Ho Soo Fong met with Standard Chartered Bank to discuss refinancing.
2001-05-11	Standard Chartered Bank sent a letter offering a loan facility for 150 Braddell Road.
2001-05-18	Ho Soo Fong and Ho Soo Kheng accepted the loan offer for 150 Braddell Road.
2001-07-01	Ho Soo Fong informed Diana Tan about refinancing 26F Poh Huat Road.
2001-08-01	Standard Chartered Bank sent a loan facility letter to refinance 77 Syed Alwi Road.
2001-08-03	Loan offer for 77 Syed Alwi Road was accepted.
2001-09-01	Appellants accepted the loan offer to refinance 26F Poh Huat Road.
2001-12-10	Standard Chartered Bank lodged a caveat against 26F Poh Huat Road.
2002-08-26	Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd offered a loan facility on the security of 26F Poh Huat Road.
2002-10-07	Appellants cancelled the three loan facilities.
2002-10-21	Appellants requested Standard Chartered Bank to withdraw the caveats.
2003-05-08	Ho Soo Fong offered to deduct $20,000 from new loans as stakeholders.
2003-05-28	BEA issued enforcement notice.
2003-06-05	Ho Soo Fong offered to pay $5,000 as cancellation fees and $2,500 for legal fees.
2003-07-22	Last request to withdraw caveats was made.
2003-08-01	Standard Chartered Bank destroyed credit approval files.
2003-10-16	BEA took action to sell 179 Syed Alwi Road by way of a mortgagee’s sale.
2004-02-23	Hong Leong Singapore Finance Ltd cancelled the loan offer.
2004-02-27	Appellants applied to the High Court for orders directing Standard Chartered Bank to withdraw the caveats.
2004-06-30	Standard Chartered Bank withdrew the caveats.
2007-01-29	Judgment reserved.

7. Legal Issues

Wrongful Lodgment of Caveat
- Outcome: The court found that the respondent's refusal to withdraw the caveat was wrongful.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Absence of caveatable interest
  - Refusal to withdraw caveat
Damages for Wrongful Refusal to Withdraw Caveat
- Outcome: The court held that the losses were reasonably foreseeable and caused by the respondent's refusal to withdraw the caveat, and that the appellants had a duty to mitigate their losses.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Foreseeability of loss
  - Causation of loss
  - Duty to mitigate
Application of the Liesbosch Principle
- Outcome: The court rejected the Liesbosch principle and overruled its previous application in Khushvinder Singh.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Impecuniosity as a cause of loss
Reasonable Foreseeability Test
- Outcome: The court held that constructive knowledge of the kind of losses suffered is sufficient to satisfy the foreseeability test of remoteness of damage.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
  - Constructive knowledge
  - Causation

8. Remedies Sought

Compensation for Pecuniary Loss
Damages for Wrongful Refusal to Withdraw Caveat

9. Cause of Actions

Wrongful Refusal to Withdraw Caveat
Breach of Section 128(1) of the Land Titles Act

10. Practice Areas

Real Estate Law
Litigation

11. Industries

Banking
Finance
Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Ho Soo Fong v Standard Chartered Bank	High Court	Yes	[2006] 3 SLR 263	Singapore	Cited as the High Court decision being appealed against, regarding the dismissal of the appeal against the assistant registrar’s decision not to award damages.
Ho Soo Fong v Standard Chartered Bank	High Court	Yes	[2005] 1 SLR 316	Singapore	Cited for Belinda Ang J's holding that the caveats had been lodged wrongfully or without reasonable cause and ordering an inquiry to determine compensation payable.
Owners of Dredger Liesbosch v Owners of Steamship Edison	House of Lords	Yes	[1933] AC 449	England and Wales	Cited for the Liesbosch principle, which states that a defendant is not liable for pecuniary loss suffered by the plaintiff if such loss is caused by the plaintiff’s lack of financial resources. This principle was ultimately rejected by the court.
Lagden v O’Connor	House of Lords	Yes	[2004] 1 AC 1067	England and Wales	Cited as the case that effectively overruled The Liesbosch principle.
Khushvinder Singh Chopra v Mookka Pillai Rajagopal	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 1 SLR 589	Singapore	Cited as the case where the court applied the Liesbosch principle, which the current court is departing from.
Seah Ting Soon trading as Sing Meng Co Wooden Cases Factory v Indonesian Tractors Co Pte Ltd	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2001] 1 SLR 521	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the court should not set aside findings of fact of the lower court unless they are plainly wrong or against the weight of the evidence.
Tithes Dental & Photo Supply Sdn Bhd v Empresa Lineas Maritimes Argentinas	Unknown	Yes	[1977] 2 MLJ 13	Malaysia	Cited for the distinction between the perception of facts and the evaluation of facts.
President, District Council, Batu Pahat v Lo Hong Tan	Unknown	Yes	[1983] 1 MLJ 299	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that an appellate court is in as good a position as the trial court to make its own evaluation from the primary facts.
The Andres Bonifacio	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 521	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the same principles applied when it came to evaluating affidavit evidence.
Lee v Ross (No 2)	New South Wales Supreme Court	Yes	[2003] NSWSC 507	Australia	Cited for the interpretation of 'attributable' in the context of wrongful lodgment of a caveat.
Walsh v Rother District Council	English High Court	Yes	[1978] 1 All ER 510	England and Wales	Cited for the interpretation of 'attributable' as meaning capable of being attributed, with the essential element being a connection of some kind.
Central Asbestos Co Ltd v Dodd	House of Lords	Yes	[1973] AC 518	England and Wales	Cited for the definition of 'attributable' as capable of being attributed, with the essential element being a connection of some kind.
Mooka Pillai Rajagopal v Khushvinder Singh Chopra	High Court	Yes	[1998] 1 SLR 186	Singapore	Cited for the application of the foreseeability test in determining whether a particular loss is compensable under s 128(1) of the LTA.
Jones v Fabbi	Unknown	Yes	(1973) 37 DLR (3d) 27	Canada	Cited in Mooka Pillai for the application of the foreseeability test.
Compania Financiera “Soleada” SA v Hamoor Tanker Corp Inc (The Boraq)	Unknown	Yes	[1981] 1 WLR 274	England and Wales	Cited in Mooka Pillai for the application of the foreseeability test.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v Morts Dock & Engineering Co Ltd (The Wagon Mound)	Privy Council	Yes	[1961] AC 388	England and Wales	Cited for the tort principles of remoteness, where the damage has to be of such a kind as the reasonable man should have foreseen.
Overseas Tankship (UK) Ltd v The Miller Steamship Co Pty	Privy Council	Yes	[1967] 1 AC 617	England and Wales	Cited for the clarification that what was required was whether a reasonable man would foresee a “real risk” of the damage occurring.
Fong Maun Yee v Yoong Weng Ho Robert	Unknown	Yes	[1997] 2 SLR 297	Singapore	Cited for the acceptance of the principles in The Wagon Mound in Singapore.
Quill Construction Sdn Bhd v Tan Hor Teng @ Tan Tien Chi	Unknown	Yes	[2003] 6 MLJ 279	Malaysia	Cited for the principle that damages under s 329(1) of the Malaysian National Land Code 1965 must be assessed in accordance with the principles of the law of tort.
Lo Foi v Lee Ah Hong @ Lee Lum Sow	Unknown	Yes	[1997] MLJU 310	Malaysia	Cited in Quill Construction Sdn Bhd v Tan Hor Teng @ Tan Tien Chi for the principle that compensation can only be awarded for damages which is foreseeable.
Beca Developments Pty Ltd v Idameneo (No 92) Pty Ltd	New South Wales Court of Appeal	Yes	(1990) 21 NSWLR 459	Australia	Cited for the interpretation of 'wrongfully' in s 74P(1) of the NSW Act, covering a tort done with an improper motive or an extraneous purpose.
Tan Soo Leng David v Wee, Satku, & Kumar Pte Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 569	Singapore	Cited for the 'wide construction' of the word 'wrongfully', where there is no caveatable interest but without an improper motive.
Eng Bee Properties Pte Ltd v Lee Foong Fatt	Unknown	Yes	[1993] 3 SLR 837	Singapore	Cited for the 'wide construction' of the word 'wrongfully', where there is no caveatable interest but without an improper motive.
Goh Koon Suan v Heng Gek Kiau	Unknown	Yes	[1990] SLR 1251	Singapore	Cited for the interpretation of 'vexatiously' as having the objective of wishing to annoy or not intending to lead to a serious result.
Smith New Court Securities Ltd v Citibank NA	House of Lords	Yes	[1997] AC 254	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that the exclusion of heads of loss in the law of negligence does not necessarily avail the intentional wrongdoer.
Ultramares Corp v Touche, Niven & Co	New York Court of Appeals	Yes	255 NY 170, 174 NE 441 (1931)	United States	Cited for the concern of imposing “liability in an indeterminate amount for an indeterminate time to an indeterminate class”.
Hadley v Baxendale	Court of Exchequer	Yes	[1854] 9 Ex 341	England and Wales	Cited for the test of remoteness in contract, where actual knowledge is required for extraordinary loss.
Muhammad Issa El Sheikh Ahmad v Ali	Privy Council	Yes	[1947] AC 414	England and Wales	Cited as a case where Lord Denning ignored The Liesbosch principle.
Trans Trust SPRL v Danubian Trading Co Ld	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1952] 2 QB 297	England and Wales	Cited as a case where Lord Denning ignored The Liesbosch principle.
Alcoa Minerals of Jamaica Inc v Herbert Boderick	Privy Council	Yes	[2002] 1 AC 371	Jamaica	Cited as a case where the modern test of whether the loss was reasonably foreseeable was applied, ignoring The Liesbosch principle.
The Clippens Oil Co Ltd v The Edinburgh and District Water Trustees	House of Lords	Yes	[1907] AC 291	Scotland	Cited for the talem qualem principle, where a wrongdoer must take his victim as he finds him.
Perry v Sidney Phillips & Son	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1982] 1 All ER 1005	England and Wales	Cited for the difficulty in understanding why the eggshell skull rule does not apply to impecuniosity.
Loh Siew Keng v Seng Huat Construction Pte Ltd	High Court	Yes	[1998] SGHC 197	Singapore	Cited for the application of the eggshell skull rule in Singapore.
Monarch Steamship Co Ltd v A/B Karlshamns Oljefabriker	House of Lords	Yes	[1949] AC 196	England and Wales	Cited for the principle that reasonable contemplation as to damages was what the court attributed to the parties.
Amar Cloth House Ltd v La Van & Co	British Columbia Supreme Court	Yes	33 BCLR (3d) 312	Canada	Cited for the extensive examination of the history of the application of the Liesbosch principle in the Canadian courts.
Tyco Australia Pty Ltd v Optus Networks Pty Ltd	Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales	Yes	[2004] NSWCA 333	Australia	Cited for the acknowledgement that The Liesbosch has been “effectively overruled” by the House of Lords in Lagden.
AG v Geothermal Produce NZ Ltd	Unknown	Yes	[1987] 2 NZLR 348	New Zealand	Cited for the statement that Liesbosch is certainly not to be extended as far as logic could be said to carry it.
Nelson v Kimberley Homes Pty Ltd	Unknown	Yes	(1989) ANZ Conv R 123	Australia	Cited for the principle that there is a duty to mitigate under s 128 of the LTA.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Real Property Act 1900 (NSW)	Australia
Local Government Act 1972	England and Wales
Malaysian National Land Code 1965	Malaysia

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Caveat
Wrongful Lodgment
Withdrawal of Caveat
Mortgagee Sale
Refinancing
Foreseeability
Causation
Liesbosch Principle
Mitigation
Pecuniary Loss
Land Titles Act

15.2 Keywords

caveat
wrongful lodgment
mortgagee sale
refinancing
land titles act
singapore

16. Subjects

Land Law
Real Property
Civil Procedure
Banking Law

17. Areas of Law

Land Law
Caveats
Remoteness of Damage
Tort Law