Chai Mei Leng (m w) v William Cheng

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Lee Seiu Kin JC
• Judgment Date: 20 November 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 381
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Year: 1998
• Published date: 04 March 2013
• Plaintiff Counsel: K S Chung (Chung & Co)
• Defendant Counsel: Anamah Tan (Ann Tan & Associates)
• Citation: [1998] SGHC 381

Judgment :

GROUNDS OF DECISION

1. In this summons the Plaintiff sought to discharge Caveat No. CV/27875G lodged by the Defendant against No. 10 Grove Lane which is registered in the name of the Plaintiff. On 11 September 1998, I made the following orders:

(i) pursuant to my powers under section 127 of the Land Titles Act, I directed the Registrar of Titles to remove the caveat; and

(ii) I ordered an assessment to be made by a Registrar in Chambers of the pecuniary loss sustained by the Plaintiff that is attributable to the continued lodgement of the caveat from 24 August 1998 until its removal.

The Plaintiff has appealed against order (ii) and I now give my grounds of decision.

The Divorce Petition

2. This matter stems from divorce proceedings filed on 28 January 1997 in Divorce Petition No. 271 of 1997, in which the Defendant petitioned to divorce his wife, the Plaintiff. The fact stated in the petition for the irretrievable breakdown of the marriage was that in section 95(3)(e) of the Women’s Charter, viz. that the parties had lived apart for at least 4 years. In his petition the Defendant also prayed for a division of the matrimonial home at 10 Grove Lane. The Plaintiff admitted the fact of separation but opposed the petition on the ground that it would be unjust and unreasonable, in the circumstances surrounding the marriage, to dissolve it.

3. On 30 May 1997, in SIC 50436/1997, the Plaintiff obtained an order for the Defendant to pay her maintenance of $3,500 per month backdated to 1 November 1996. The Defendant was also ordered to continue to pay the utilities, telephone and property tax bills in respect of 10 Grove Lane pending hearing of the final maintenance order.

4. On 13 January 1998 the Family Court granted a decree nisi but ordered that it should not be made absolute until after the expiration of 3 months or after the hearing of all ancillary matters, whichever was the later. On 20 January 1998 the Plaintiff lodged a notice of appeal against the grant of the decree nisi.

The Caveats

5. Following the grant of the decree nisi, the Defendant’s solicitors lodged 2 caveats on 9 February 1998 against 2 properties registered in the name of the Plaintiff as follows:

(i) Caveat No. CV/27875G in respect of 10 Grove Lane; and

(ii) Caveat No. CV/27896G in respect of 16 Leedon Heights #02-04.

In both caveats the ground of claim were as follows:

"A constructive trust in favour of the Caveator as the land and premises above described (hereinafter referred to as "the said property") using monies that originated from the Caveator and being a matrimonial asset of the Caveator and the Registered Proprietor."

6. On 23 February 1998 the Plaintiff took out this summons, OS 208/98, for an order to remove the caveat on 10 Grove...