Eu Yee Kai Alexander Junior (alias Eu Sandy) v Hanson Ingrid Christina

• Judge: Lai Siu Chiu J
• Judgment Date: 23 September 2004
• Neutral Citation: [2004] SGHC 214
• Defendant Counsel: Lynette Chew (Harry Elias Partnership)
• Subject Matter: Section 115 Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed),Land,Wrongful lodgment,Caveats,Whether caveat lodged against matrimonial home should be removed
• Published date: 24 September 2004
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sheerin Ameen (Peter Chua and Partners)

23 September 2004

Lai Siu Chiu J:

The application

1 Alexander Eu (“the plaintiff”) applied in this Originating Summons No 283 of 2004 (“the present OS”) for the following reliefs against Ingrid Christina Hanson (“the defendant”), who is his former wife:

(a) that the defendant do forthwith remove, or otherwise show cause why, Caveat No CV/12959K lodged on 21 January 2003 (“the Caveat”) against No 57 Cairnhill Road #16-03, Elizabeth Heights, Singapore 229668 (“the Property”) should not be withdrawn or otherwise removed;

(b) that the defendant do pay compensation or otherwise furnish forthwith an indemnity to the plaintiff for all pecuniary loss sustained by the plaintiff attributable to the lodgment of the Caveat by the defendant until its eventual removal;

(c) Further or in the alternative, that an inquiry be held as to damages, costs and expenses sustained or incurred by the plaintiff as a result of the Caveat having been lodged and allowed to remain on the Property and payment of such sums or sum as may be found due as compensation to the plaintiff.

2 On the same day, the plaintiff also filed Originating Summons No 282 of 2004 (“the first OS”) applying for the same reliefs as in the present OS but in respect of another property, viz No 14 East Sussex Lane, Singapore 279799 (“the Other Property”).

3 Both the present OS and the first OS came up for hearing before me. I granted the plaintiff’s application in the first OS and, inter alia, ordered the defendant to remove the caveat she had filed against the Other Property and awarded costs to the plaintiff. However, I made no orders on the present OS nor any orders on costs. The plaintiff has now appealed against my decision (in Civil Appeal No 41 of 2004).

The facts

4 From the affidavits filed by the plaintiff, it would appear the parties were divorced by a decree nisi in Divorce Petition No 602919 of 2002 (“the divorce proceedings”) granted on 24 September 2002. Hearing of ancillary issues arising from the divorce proceedings including the division of matrimonial assets took place on 31 March 2003 and 1 April 2003 before the family court judge Tan Peck Cheng who reserved judgment.

5 On 21 January 2003, the defendant filed the Caveat against the Property pursuant to s 115 of the Land Titles Act (Cap 157, 1994 Rev Ed) (“the Act”) based on the following grounds:

1. the land and premises above described … being a matrimonial asset of the [defendant] and the [plaintiff];

2. a constructive trust in favour of the [defendant] inferred from the [plaintiff’s] conduct and representation to the [defendant] that the [defendant] would acquire a beneficial interest in the property and/or the proceeds of sale.

6 According to the plaintiff’s first affidavit and exhibits therein contained, the Property (as well as the Other Property) was purchased by him in his sole name on or about 4 March 1996. It was initially subject to a mortgage in favour of the Oversea-Chinese Banking Corporation (“OCBC”) registered on 19 March 2002 as well as to a charge of the Central Provident Fund Board.

7 As a consequence of the economic downturn, the plaintiff obtained on or about 19 September 2003 fresh financing from another financial institution, viz the Standard Chartered Bank (“SCB”). As a consequence, a fresh mortgage was created in favour of SCB on 24 December 2003 to replace OCBC’s mortgage.

8 In addition to the mortgage financing, the plaintiff obtained an additional loan facility of $25,000 (the additional facility) from SCB. A pre-condition of this additional facility was that the plaintiff was required to provide SCB with a clean title to the Property. The plaintiff could not do so because of the defendant’s lodgment of the Caveat.

9 The plaintiff deposed that his solicitors, on or about 24 February 2004, had required the defendant to remove the Caveat, which he contended had been filed vexatiously, wrongfully and without reasonable...