JUDGMENT

Has Zanah Mehat JCA:

[1] Having considered parties' submissions, both oral and written record of appeal and the grounds decision, we have now reached our decision. The following are our brief reasons.

[2] In the High Court, the Appellant sought a declaration that the charge and the lien holder's caveat (collectively referred as "the Charge") entered in favour of the 2nd respondent are unlawful and void as it had contravened the provisions of reg 11 of the Housing Development (Control And Licensing) Regulations 1989 (PU(A) 58/89)("Regulations 1989"), made under the Housing Development (Control And Licensing) Act 1966 (HDA). His Lordship dismissed the Appellant's application.

[3] The appellant is one of the purchasers of a parcel in the housing development on land belonging to the 1st respondent ("the project") by virtue of the Deed of Novation dated 3 September 2018 ("Deed of Novation") with one Gurdip Singh and Harjender Kaur ("the original purchasers") executed with the consent of the 1st respondent. The original purchasers had entered a SPA with the 1st respondent. It is not disputed that the SPA is subject to the HDA. The 2nd respondent is the contractor for the project. To