FOO POH SANG v

YUEN LAM SDN. BHD.

[1989] 1 MLJ 373.

KUMERASELVAM A/L SANDERAN

1132700372
BRIEF FACTS
PTF DFT

SOLD LAND

Purchase price
$$$ not fully paid

PTF-lodge caveat to protect

DFT-registered as owner &
interest as DFT had
created charge on land
defaulted in paying the
purchase price
CHARGEE

To set aside the caveat

and SUCCEEDED

PTF Interlocutory To restrain DFT from

Injunction disposing the land
WHAT HAPPENED NEXT ?

Chargee intervened to set aside the injunction

• GROUND : 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.
In the judgement…
[ Justice Peh Swee Chin - on difference between a caveat and an injunction ]

• A caveator when called upon to justify his caveat, he would have to satisfy
the court that he has a caveatable interest in the land in question.
[ 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.
***sine qua non : essential ingredient without which something would be impossible***
•THANK YOU