Pendaftar Hak Milik Negeri Selangor & Ors v Ooh Tong Hai & Anor

Appellant(s):

• Pendaftar Hakmilik Negeri Selangor
• Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian Selangor
• Sahila Binti Mohamad Sajari
• Ahmad Suaidi Bin Abdul Rahim

Respondent(s):

• Ooh Tong Hai
• Goh Hui Li

• YA Dato' Hashim Bin Hamzah
• YA Dato' Lim Chong Fong
• YA Dato Alwi Bin Abdul Wahab

• The original proprietor's land was subject to a scam where an imposter purportedly sold it to two different parties: the first and second respondents, and subsequently to the first appellant.
• The first and second respondents paid a substantial sum and lodged a private caveat, which was later wrongfully removed, enabling the land's transfer and registration in the first appellant's name.
• The original proprietor and the first and second respondents reached an amicable settlement, withdrawing their claims against each other, but maintaining claims against other parties involved in the fraudulent transactions.

• Whether the Land Registry and its Relevant Officers owed a statutory and common law duty of care to the first and second respondents, and if so, whether they breached it by issuing multiple fake titles, negligently removing a private caveat, and failing to investigate complaints.
• Whether the first appellant's registered title was indefeasible, given the findings of forgery, fraud, and unlawful acquisition in the purported transfer from the original proprietor.
• Whether the first, second, third, and fourth appellants were liable for fraud and conspiracy, and whether the third and fourth appellants (solicitors) should indemnify the Land Registry and its Relevant Officers.

• The Court dismissed both appeals, affirming the High Court's findings of fact and application of law, finding no misdirection or plain error warranting appellate intervention.
• The Court held the Land Registry and its Relevant Officers liable for negligence and breach of statutory and common law duties, particularly for their role in the issuance of multiple fake titles and the wrongful removal of the private caveat.
• The Court affirmed that the first appellant's title was void and defeasible under Section 340(2) of the National Land Code 1965 due to fraud, conspiracy, and forgery, ordering the title to be re-vested in the original proprietor.
• The Court found the first, second, third, and fourth appellants liable for fraud and conspiracy, and ordered the third and fourth appellants (solicitors) to indemnify the Land Registry and its Relevant Officers as primary wrongdoers.