Kok Zhen Yen v Beth Candice Wu: Caveat Removal & Wrongful Lodgment Dispute

In Kok Zhen Yen and Cheong Wee Min v Beth Candice Wu, the General Division of the High Court of Singapore addressed an application by the claimants, Kok Zhen Yen and Cheong Wee Min, against the defendant, Beth Candice Wu, concerning the removal of a caveat lodged against their property. The claimants sought several orders, including the removal of the caveat, a declaration that the defendant had no caveatable interest, and damages for wrongful lodgment. The court allowed the application in part, ordering the removal of the caveat and restraining the defendant from lodging further caveats, but denied the declarations sought and the order for damages.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Application allowed in part.

1.3 Case Type

Civil

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore court orders removal of caveat lodged by daughter-in-law, finding no caveatable interest in property sale proceeds. Injunction granted.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Kok Zhen YenClaimantIndividualApplication allowed in partPartial
Cheong Wee MinClaimantIndividualApplication allowed in partPartial
Beth Candice WuDefendantIndividualApplication dismissed in partLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
Goh YihanJudicial CommissionerYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Kishan Pillay s/o Rajagopal PillayBreakpoint LLC
Chan Michael KarfaiBreakpoint LLC
Tan Gee TuanGee Tuan Tan

4. Facts

  1. Claimants are husband and wife and the registered owners of the Property.
  2. Defendant is the daughter-in-law of the claimants.
  3. Claimants purchased the Property in 2009 for investment purposes.
  4. Claimants decided to sell the Property in 2022 to fund their retirement.
  5. Defendant lodged two caveats against the Property, claiming an interest in the sale proceeds.
  6. Claimants allege that the payments made by the defendant were repayments for a personal loan.
  7. The first caveat was cancelled by the registrar.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Kok Zhen Yen and another v Beth Candice Wu, Originating Application No 208 of 2023, [2023] SGHC 126

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Claimants purchased the Property
Divorce proceedings commenced between CJG and the defendant
Claimants granted an Option to Purchase to the Purchasers
Defendant lodged the First Caveat against the Property
Claimants found out about the First Caveat
Registrar issued a notice to the defendant regarding the First Caveat
Defendant lodged the Second Caveat against the Property
Claimants were notified of the Second Caveat
First Caveat was cancelled by the Registrar
Hearing of the application
Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

  1. Caveatable Interest
    • Outcome: The court held that the defendant did not have a caveatable interest in the property.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Interest in proceeds of sale of land
      • Equitable interest
    • Related Cases:
      • [2015] 1 SLR 601
  2. Wrongful Lodgment of Caveat
    • Outcome: The court found that the defendant had lodged the Second Caveat wrongfully and without reasonable cause.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Vexatious lodgment
      • Lodgment without reasonable cause
    • Related Cases:
      • [2007] 2 SLR(R) 181
  3. Injunction against Lodging Further Caveats
    • Outcome: The court granted an injunction restraining the defendant from lodging further caveats against the Property.
    • Category: Procedural
    • Sub-Issues:
      • Abuse of caveat procedure
      • Prevention of harassment

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Order requiring the defendant to show cause why the Second Caveat should not be withdrawn
  2. Declaration that the defendant has no caveatable interest in the Property
  3. Declaration that the Second Caveat was lodged wrongfully
  4. Order directing the Registrar of Titles to cancel the Second Caveat
  5. Order restraining the defendant from lodging further caveats against the Property
  6. Order that the defendant pays damages to be assessed
  7. Order that the defendant pays the costs of the application

9. Cause of Actions

  • Application for removal of caveat
  • Claim for damages for wrongful lodgment of caveat
  • Application for an injunction

10. Practice Areas

  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Civil Litigation

11. Industries

  • Real Estate

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Nimisha Pandey v Divya BothraHigh CourtYes[2023] SGHC 125SingaporeCited for the applicable test to determine whether a defendant has shown cause why a caveat should not be removed under s 127(1).
Eng Mee Yong and others v Letchumanan s/o VelayuthamPrivy CouncilYes[1980] AC 331United KingdomCited for the two-stage test for determining whether a caveat should be maintained.
PACC Offshore Services Holdings Ltd v Kensteel Engineering Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2017] SGHC 175SingaporeCited for the application of the Eng Mee Yong test.
Eng Bee Properties Pte Ltd v Lee Foong FattHigh CourtYes[1993] 2 SLR(R) 778SingaporeCited for the application of the Eng Mee Yong test.
Sim Kwang Mui Ivy v Goh Peng KhimHigh CourtYes[1994] 2 SLR(R) 814SingaporeCited for the principle that a caveat will be allowed to stand while the parties go to trial over the claim if the court is unable to decide on the merits of the claim.
Tan Yow Kon v Tan Swat Ping and othersHigh CourtYes[2006] 3 SLR(R) 881SingaporeCited for the principle that the balance of convenience must be in favor of maintaining the caveat.
Salbiah bte Adnan v Micro Credit Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2015] 1 SLR 601SingaporeCited for the principle that a contractual right to the sale proceeds of property is not a caveatable interest.
Ho Seek Yueng Novel and another v J & V Development Pte LtdHigh CourtYes[2006] 2 SLR(R) 742SingaporeClaimants referred to this case as being problematic and inconsistent with the outcome in Salbiah.
Abdul Hamid Bin Mohamed Ismail and others v Shaik Raheem s/o Abdul Shaik Shaik Dawood and anotherDistrict CourtYes[2005] SGDC 28SingaporeClaimants referred to this case as being problematic and inconsistent with the outcome in Salbiah.
Bestland Development Pte Ltd (in liquidation) v Manit Udomkunnatum and anotherHigh CourtYes[1996] 2 SLR(R) 300SingaporeCited to distinguish between a contractual right to purchase sum and a vendor's lien.
Ho Soo Fong and another v Standard Chartered BankCourt of AppealYes[2007] 2 SLR(R) 181SingaporeCited for the definition of 'wrongdoing' in s 128(1) of the LTA and the requirement of improper motive or extraneous purpose.
Mookka Pillai Rajagopal and others v Khushvinder Singh ChopraHigh CourtYes[1997] 2 SLR(R) 689SingaporeCited for the view that the act, refusal, or failure referred to in s 128(1) of the then LTA might be accepted as a new statutory tort.
Nguyen v Sage Consultant Group Pty Ltd; Dang v Nguyen (No 3)New South Wales Supreme CourtYes[2022] NSWSC 515AustraliaCited for the position taken by the Australian state courts in justifying their power to grant injunctive relief of this form.
Lendlease Communities (Australia) Ltd v Sime JuricVictoria Supreme CourtYes[2018] VSC 107AustraliaCited as an example of Australian authorities that suggest a court can grant an injunction in a wider form that is not restricted to only the property concerned.
Andrews Family Holdings Pty Ltd v Yellow Tractor Pty LtdVictoria Supreme CourtYes[2017] VSC 682AustraliaCited for the principle that if the caveator lodged multiple caveats in similar terms that have all been removed, then an injunction would be more readily granted to restrain him from lodging a further caveat.
Maryvell Investments Pty Ltd v VelissarisVictoria Supreme CourtYes[2008] VSC 19AustraliaCited as authority allowing the court to restrain Annesley from lodging further caveats in respect of the land without leave of court.
Wells v RouseVictoria Supreme CourtYes[2015] VSC 533AustraliaCited for the principle that if it is clear that the caveatee intended to annoy or harass the caveatee through the lodgment of the caveats, then an injunction would be more readily granted to restrain him or her from lodging a further caveat.
Ikebife Ibeneweka v Peter EgbunaPrivy CouncilYes[1964] 1 WLR 219United KingdomCited for the principle that the power to grant a declaration should be exercised with a proper sense of responsibility.
Karaha Bodas Co LLC v Pertamina Energy Trading Ltd and another appealCourt of AppealYes[2006] 1 SLR(R) 112SingaporeCited for the proposition that a person seeking declaratory relief must satisfy six elements, including that the declaration must be justified by the circumstances of the case.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Land Titles Act 1993Singapore
s 127(1) Land Titles Act 1993Singapore
s 128(1) Land Titles ActSingapore
s 115(3)(a) Land Titles Act 1993Singapore
s 121(7) Land Titles ActSingapore
s 130 Land Titles ActSingapore
Civil Law Act 1909Singapore
Supreme Court of Judicature Act 1969Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Caveat
  • Caveatable interest
  • Wrongful lodgment
  • Land Titles Act
  • Injunction
  • Sale proceeds
  • Property
  • Registrar of Titles
  • Housing Loan
  • Personal Loan

15.2 Keywords

  • Caveat
  • Land
  • Property
  • Singapore
  • Wrongful Lodgment
  • Injunction

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Caveats90
Land Law85
Property Law75
Injunctions50
Contract Law30
Civil Litigation20
Civil Procedure20
Torts15

16. Subjects

  • Land Law
  • Caveats
  • Civil Procedure
  • Real Estate