EQUITABLE LIEN

2 I s when Lender/Creditor fail to enter Lien-Holder caveat (LHC) I s when Lender/Creditor fail to enter Lien-Holder caveat (LHC) BUT BUT still keep the title as security still keep the title as security The act of keeping the IDT, RETAIN the right of the lender as lien holder and is known as “equitable lien”. The act of keeping the IDT, RETAIN the right of the lender as lien holder and is known as “equitable lien”.

This type of land creates an “equitable” interest in the land or lease. This type of land creates an “equitable” interest in the land or lease. Creditor possess a right to a lien in equity which is enforceable by way of specific performance (contract entered by the parties-good in law under Section 206(3) NLC) Creditor possess a right to a lien in equity which is enforceable by way of specific performance (contract entered by the parties-good in law under Section 206(3) NLC)

4  Mercantile Bank Bhd v The Official Assignee of the Property of How Han Teh (1969) 2MLJ 169 Mercantile Bank Bhd v The Official Assignee of the Property of How Han Teh (1969) 2MLJ 169 Mercantile Bank Bhd v The Official Assignee of the Property of How Han Teh (1969) 2MLJ 169 “In other words, although failure to lodge a caveat does not entitle the depositee with whom the issued document of title is deposited, to a lien under the Code, he still possesses a right to it in equity, he can exercise that right by registering the caveat….at any time”( Raja Azlan Shah J) “In other words, although failure to lodge a caveat does not entitle the depositee with whom the issued document of title is deposited, to a lien under the Code, he still possesses a right to it in equity, he can exercise that right by registering the caveat….at any time”( Raja Azlan Shah J)

5  Standard Chartered Bank Bhd v Yap Sing Yoke (1989) 2 MLJ 49 Standard Chartered Bank Bhd v Yap Sing Yoke (1989) 2 MLJ 49 Standard Chartered Bank Bhd v Yap Sing Yoke (1989) 2 MLJ 49 Lamin J stated: “as the IDT was at all time in the custody of the P, it had acquired a lien in equity over the land. The equitable interest is not affected by the absence of a caveat. The P had by right to lodge a caveat and may do so at any time under the provision of the NLC, 1965” Lamin J stated: “as the IDT was at all time in the custody of the P, it had acquired a lien in equity over the land. The equitable interest is not affected by the absence of a caveat. The P had by right to lodge a caveat and may do so at any time under the provision of the NLC, 1965”