civil appeal no. q-03-118-2009 between ting sieh chung

[17] Had the Defendant not entered the caveat, the Plaintiff would
have sold the houses or charged them to a bank to raise funds for
purposes of development. These are losses of opportunity arising
from the Defendant’s entry of the caveat which had remained for
some eight years before the Court ordered its removal.
[18] We are of the view that the registrar’s assessment of damages
was adequately supported by his specific finding of facts based on
the unrebutted evidence adduced before him.
[19] As a matter of fact, the learned Judge had accepted that the
development project “was abandoned when the loan was not
available”, as a result of the Defendant’s caveat. The learned Judge
should have proceeded to hold that the Plaintiff is entitled to the
losses for which the Plaintiff must be compensated by way of
damages, particularly in the absence of rebuttal evidence by the
Defendant. Hence, the learned Judge has erred when he set aside
the registrar’s assessment of damages.
IV. CONCLUSION
[20] As there was an error on the part of the learned Judge in
ordering a re-assessment of damages before another registrar, we
allow this Appeal, set aside the order of the learned Judge and
reinstate the registrar’s assessment and the quantum awarded.
8