Land Titles (Amendment) Bill

Mdm Speaker, I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Mdm Speaker, this Bill seeks to amend the Land Titles Act to improve our laws on land administration and for greater operational efficiency.

The amendments proposed in this Bill were arrived at after consultation with the relevant Government departments, the Law Society of Singapore, experienced conveyancing lawyers and they are also in response to public feedback.

The Bill does several things. It empowers the Court to create easements and to vary or extinguish existing easements. It improves the remedies available to a property owner in response to a caveat lodged on his property. It introduces a list of dealings in respect of which registration cannot be prevented by a caveat. It makes miscellaneous changes for greater clarity or consistency and for better administration of the Land Titles Act.

Page: 41

The Bill also makes related amendments to the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA) and the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act (CLPA).

I will now take the House through the main features of the Bill.

At present, access by non-owners through another person's property is established by use over a long period of time or the landowner granting a right of way, also known as an easement.

When land is re-parcelled and developed, it can give rise to situations where previous easements are affected or new easements are required. For example, owners who previously had access to a main road may now find their access blocked, or the historical easement may now no longer serve its original purpose. This results in less efficient use of the land.

The Court, currently, does not have the power to vary or create easements under the existing provisions of the Land Titles Act.

In the recent local case of Botanica Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 2040, the High Court suggested that in light of increased activity in the redevelopment of properties, it was perhaps timely for the Legislature to consider the need for the Court to have an express power to modify easements.

My Ministry has considered this issue and we are of the view that it would be useful to give the courts power to modify easements. This is addressed in the Bill.

The Bill will empower the Court to create, vary or extinguish an easement over land if it is reasonably necessary for the effective use or development of the land that will have the benefit of the easement or that is affected by the easement and if it is consistent with the public interest.

Where necessary, the Court may also award compensation to any party affected by the Court's order.

The Land Titles Act deals with registered land. Related amendments will be made to the CLPA to confer similar powers on the Court in respect of the creation, variation or extinguishment of easements over unregistered land. We

Page: 42

envisage that these amendments will facilitate more efficient and optimal use of land.

They also align our practices with those of Commonwealth jurisdictions, such as Australia – for example, New South Wales and Queensland – New Zealand and Canada, which have similar provisions.

The next amendment relates to the lodging of frivolous or vexatious caveats.

Under the current Land Titles Act framework, when a caveat is lodged, the onus of getting the caveat removed is on the property owner. The procedure, as it currently stands, is as follows.

(a) When a caveat is lodged against a property and the property owner is of the view that it is frivolous or vexatious, the property owner must file a statutory declaration with the Registrar of Titles to that effect.

(b) The Registrar will allow the caveat to remain if the caveator is able to:

(i) produce documentary evidence to show that he has an interest in the property; or

(ii) obtain a Court Order for the caveat to be retained.

(c) Usually, the caveator will produce evidence that, on the face of it, justifies his claim of an interest in the property.

(d) Should the property owner disagree, he would have to obtain a Court Order to remove the caveat.

We have received feedback that this practice is unfair to property owners, as they have to bear the burden of removing frivolous or vexatious caveats.

As such, clause 57 amends section 127(2) of the Land Titles Act to require the caveator, within 30 days, to obtain a Court Order for the caveat to remain if the property owner lodges an application with the Registrar to challenge the caveat's validity.

Page: 43

This amendment puts the onus on the caveator to justify his claim of an interest in the property. This is in line with the normal burden of proof that he who asserts must prove his assertion.

This is also the position in Australia, namely, New South Wales and Victoria.

The next amendment deals with registration of dealings in land. The general rule is that a caveat prevents the registration of any subsequent dealing in the land identified in the caveat, unless the Land Titles Act provides otherwise.

Presently, section 129 of the Land Titles Act sets out a list of dealings which can still be registered, despite a caveat having been lodged against the property, unless the caveat specifically prohibits the dealing on that list.

Examples of such dealings include release or extinguishment of easements or restrictions on land.

However, this is not entirely satisfactory as the current list contains dealings which would not necessarily conflict with the caveator's claim of interest in the property, for example, a change or correction of the property owner's name.

Presently, such dealings are included in the same list and will be prevented from registration if the caveator chooses to extend the prohibition to the list of dealings.

The Registrar would have to issue a notice to the caveator giving him 30 days to apply to the Court if he wishes to prevent its registration.

It is not desirable to prevent the registration of such dealings when they will not conflict with the caveator's claim of interest in the property.

It also causes unnecessary delays in registration and increases administration costs.

To do away with such delays and costs, clause 58 of the Bill therefore proposes to amend section 129 of the Land Titles Act to create two separate lists of dealings.

First, a "permissive list" of dealings the registration of which the caveator can still prevent by lodgement of the caveat; and secondly, a "non-conflict list"

Page: 44

of dealings the registration of which the caveator cannot prevent by lodgment of the caveat. These are dealings which do not conflict with or have any impact upon the caveator's claim of an interest in the property, for example, a name correction or an application for a new certificate of title.

The Bill updates the maximum fines for offences involving fraud under section 169 and for falsely certifying the correctness of any application, dealing or caveat lodged at the Land Titles Registry under section 59(6) of the Land Titles Act.

This ensures that penalties are commensurate with the offences committed, especially in the light of the higher values of property transactions today.

The updated penalties are also in line with those of similar offences found in other legislation.

Finally, the Bill makes several technical and housekeeping amendments. Mdm Speaker, I beg to move.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time and committed to a Committee of the whole House.

The House immediately resolved itself into a Committee on the Bill. – [Ms Indranee Rajah].

Bill considered in Committee; reported without amendment; read a Third time and passed.