Successful Orders to Remove a Private Caveat and Restrain Further Caveats Over Our Client’s Property
Today, we are pleased to share a significant outcome achieved for our client in a recent property dispute before the Kuala Lumpur High Court.
The case concerned the use of a private caveat to secure payment of a disputed monetary claim. At its core, the issue was straightforward:
Can a party use a private caveat to effectively tie up someone else’s property simply because it claims to be owed money?
Our position was clear: a private caveat is not a debt-recovery weapon.
The Background
Our client is the registered proprietor of a commercial property in Selangor.
Our client had engaged a real estate agency to assist in securing a purchaser for the property. A sale and purchase agreement was subsequently entered into, and the transaction proceeded.
However, the dispute arose over professional fees allegedly payable to the real estate agency.
What made the matter particularly serious was that a private caveat was lodged against our client’s property.
The first caveat caused the sale transaction to be delayed for several months. It was eventually removed.
However, despite the removal of the first caveat by the land office, a second private caveat was subsequently lodged against the same property in February 2026, this time by the individual property negotiator involved in the transaction.
The second caveat effectively placed another restriction on our client’s ability to deal freely with its own property.
Our client therefore commenced proceedings seeking, amongst other relief, the removal of the caveat and an injunction preventing further caveats from being lodged.
Our Central Argument: A Monetary Claim Does Not Automatically Create a Caveatable Interest
One of the key issues we had to address was whether the alleged entitlement to professional fees could constitute a “caveatable interest” under the National Land Code.
We argued that it could not.
A private caveat is not available merely because someone believes that another person owes them money.
The statutory framework requires the caveator to have a recognised interest in land — such as a title, registrable interest or beneficial interest under a trust.
In this case, the alleged entitlement was fundamentally contractual and monetary in nature.
There was no ownership interest.
There was no charge over the property.
There was no trust.
There was no option to purchase.
There was no proprietary or beneficial interest capable of registration.
In substance, the claim was a claim for money.
And if a person is owed money, the ordinary remedy is to pursue that monetary claim through the appropriate civil proceedings. It does not follow that the creditor can simply place a caveat over the debtor’s property.
That distinction was central to our case.
A Caveat Cannot Be Used as Self-Help to Pressure Payment
We also emphasised the practical consequences of allowing such a caveat to remain.
A private caveat is not merely an entry on a land search.
It can interfere with the registered proprietor’s ability to sell, transfer, charge or otherwise deal with the property.
In our client’s case, there was actual evidence that the caveat had affected the progress of the sale transaction and caused significant delay.
This was therefore not a situation where the caveat was merely theoretical.
Our client was the registered proprietor and was directly prejudiced by the continued restriction.
We argued that the court should not permit the land registration system to be used as a form of commercial leverage for an otherwise unsecured monetary claim.
The Second Caveat Was Particularly Important
There was another important feature of the case.
This was not simply a situation where a caveat had been lodged once and the parties subsequently disagreed about its validity.
A first caveat had already been removed.
A second caveat was then lodged over the same property in relation to the same underlying fee dispute.
We argued that this demonstrated a genuine risk that, unless an injunction was granted, further caveats could continue to be lodged whenever the disputed payment remained unresolved.
In practical terms, our client could potentially be forced into repeatedly dealing with caveats over its own property simply because the other side continued to assert a monetary claim.
We submitted that this would cause continuing prejudice and would undermine the very purpose of the land registration system.
We Also Pursued the Issue of the Property Negotiator’s Conduct
The case did not stop at the question of whether the caveat should be removed.
We also advanced arguments concerning the conduct of the individual property negotiator and the responsibilities of the real estate agency.
A property professional who is entrusted with handling a property transaction must exercise appropriate skill, care and professionalism.
In our case, we argued that the lodging of the caveat without a proper caveatable interest was wrongful and that the circumstances also raised issues concerning compliance with the statutory framework governing estate agency activities.
We further advanced the position that the real estate agency could not simply distance itself from the conduct of its representative when that conduct occurred in connection with the very transaction which the agency had been engaged to handle.
The principles of vicarious liability and the close connection test therefore formed an important part of our submissions.
The Alleged RM33,000 Fee Claim
Another aspect of the dispute concerned the alleged professional fee of RM33,000.
We challenged the legal basis upon which the fee was being claimed.
Among other matters, we relied on the statutory restrictions governing who is entitled to recover remuneration for estate agency services.
Our position was that the alleged fee could not simply be treated as an independently enforceable entitlement of the individual negotiator, particularly where the statutory requirements governing estate agency activities had to be considered.
This was important because the Defendants’ position on the fee was ultimately being used to justify the continued encumbrance of our client’s property.
We argued that the existence of a disputed fee claim does not transform that claim into a proprietary interest in land.
The Court Granted the Orders We Sought
Following the hearing today, we are pleased that the High Court granted the substantive relief sought by our client.
The Court ordered:
- The removal/cancellation of the private caveat over our client’s property;
- The relevant Land Office is to give effect to the order and proceed with the removal of the caveat;
- An injunction restraining the individual property negotiator from entering any further caveat over the property; and
- General damages against the individual property negotiator.
The assessment of damages has been fixed for October 2026. We are claiming/looking at more than RM 100,000.00 in damages.
This is significant because the outcome does not merely remove the existing obstacle. The injunction also addresses the risk of the same problem occurring again.
Why This Result is Important
For me, this case reinforces an important principle in property litigation:
A private caveat should protect a genuine proprietary interest — not become a mechanism for securing payment of an ordinary monetary debt.
Registered proprietors should be able to deal with their property without facing repeated restrictions based on claims which do not amount to a genuine caveatable interest.
At the same time, parties who genuinely believe they are entitled to money are not without remedies. They can pursue their claims through the appropriate legal channels.
The important distinction is between protecting an interest in land and using land as security for a claim which has no proprietary foundation.
That distinction can have very significant commercial consequences.
Our Approach at JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors
At JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors, we approach litigation by looking beyond the immediate application.
In this case, the objective was not simply to obtain an order removing one caveat.
We had to address:
- whether there was any genuine caveatable interest;
- the legal nature of the alleged fee claim;
- the effect of the caveat on our client’s proprietary rights;
- the consequences of the repeated lodging of caveats;
- the conduct and responsibilities of the property negotiator;
- the potential liability of the real estate agency;
- the statutory framework governing estate agency activities; and
- the appropriate remedies to protect our client from continuing prejudice.
The result was an order which addressed both the existing caveat and the risk of further interference with our client’s property.
For us, that is what effective litigation should achieve: not merely winning an argument, but obtaining practical protection for the client.
JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors
Strategic Litigation. Commercial Solutions. Results.
Written on 15th September 2026 (Tuesday)
Contact JY Ko Advocates & Solicitors to make an appointment today!
🌐 Call us: +6017.6965.966 (Call / WhatsApp)
📩 Email Us: nick@jykolaw.com
Disclaimer: The above proposition is subject to actual facts and circumstances and shall never be referred as the actual law without seeking legal advice. Consult us for more information!