James Foong JC:

[1] This is a hearing for assessment of damages made pursuant to an order of Abu Mansor J on 26 June 1991 (hereinafter referred to as 'the said order').

[2] Briefly the facts are as follows. The plaintiff entered into an agreement to purchase a piece of property from the defendant. In relation to this purchase, a caveat was lodged over the said property by the plaintiff, their servant and/or agent. On an application for the removal of the said caveat, Abu Mansor J ordered that the said caveat be removed and that damages be awarded against the plaintiff, the caveator of the said property.

[3] An appeal against this said order was heard by the Supreme Court and on 11 June 1991 this appeal was dismissed, thereby confirming the order made by Abu Mansor J.

[4] The hearing before me now is for assessment of damages for the wrongful lodgement of the said caveat. During this hearing, learned counsel for the defendant, Mr Arthur Lee, submitted to me that there is no necessity for the defendant to prove that the caveat was wrongfully entered on the said property by the plaintiff, as this had already been decided and confirmed by the Supreme Court. What is left now to be decided is the question of damages as provided under the said order and, as provided for under s 329(1) of the National Land Code 1965 which reads as follows:

Any person or body who wrongfully or without reasonable cause, secures the entry of, or fails to withdraw any private caveat shall be liable to pay compensation to any person or body who thereby suffers any damages or loss.

[5] On this point, I am in full agreement.

[6] Now, turning to the question of damages, Mr Arthur Lee also submitted to me that any damages to be awarded in this case must be related to actual loss.

[7] In support of his claim, the defendant testified to the following facts:

(1) the defendant entered into a sale and purchase agreement with the plaintiff on 30 May 1985 (I shall refer to this agreement as 'the Mawar agreement') for the sale of the said property for a sum of $1,655,809.60;

(2) this sale and purchase was, as alleged by the defendant, to have been rescinded due to the plaintiff's breach of the terms and conditions of the Mawar agreement;

(3) subsequent to the aforesaid, the defendant on 1 August 1989 contracted in writing to sell the said property to one M/s Chieng Chuang Construction Co Pte Ltd (hereinafter referred to as 'Chieng Chuang') for a sum of $3.005m; (this contract I shall hereinafter refer to as 'Chieng Chuang's contract');

(4) pursuant to Chieng Chuang's contract, the defendant received a sum of $30,550 as deposit and part payment towards the purchase price;

(5) being aware that the said caveat was not removed from the said property, Chieng Chuang with the consent of the defendant paid a further sum of $274,500 to the defendant's solicitors as stakeholders. This sum was kept in a fixed deposit account and of which interest, until its subsequent return to Chieng Chuang, was forwarded to the defendant for his benefit;

(6) on 7 November 1989, realizing that the said caveat had yet to be removed, Chieng Chuang and the defendant entered into a supplementary agreement to vary the terms of Chieng Chuang's contract. (This supplementary agreement I shall hereinafter refer to as 'the supplementary contract'.) This supplementary contract provided, inter alia, the following terms:

(i) the completion date for the purchase of the said property by Chieng Chuang was deferred to 1 June 1990 on condition that the said caveat be removed by that time;

(ii) that in the event that the said caveat was not removed by 1 June 1990, the defendant and his solicitors should refund to Chieng Chuang the sum of $30,550 and $274,500 respectively so paid earlier under Chieng Chuang's contract without interest and, the sale and purchase of the said property between Chieng Chuang and the defendant would terminate;

(iii) if the said caveat was removed after the deferred date of completion, ie 1 June