Legal Case Summary
Oh Hiam and Others v Tham Kong [1980] UKPC 18; [1980] 2 MLJ 159
Rectification for a shared mistake and equitable relief against a registered landowner in Malaysia.
Facts
Oh Hiam, administering her late husband’s estate, entered into an agreement in 1956 to sell seven listed plots at $450 per acre. Six formed an area of rubber-growing land at Gombak. The seventh, Lot 3660, was a separate village plot containing a house occupied by tenants and members of her family.
The transfers were registered in 1958. The dispute emerged when attempts were made to collect the house’s rents on the purchaser’s behalf. Oh Hiam and her family maintained that Lot 3660 had been included by mistake: the intended sale concerned the rubber lands. They sought its retransfer against repayment of the appropriate price.
Law Teacher writing support
Writing a law essay?
We choose a writer who is an expert in your area of law and qualified to at least the academic level you select. Most of our writers hold a master’s degree or PhD, have teaching experience, or both.
Send us your question and, if you wish, any marking criteria. We’ll write an essay to your instructions.
Gill J accepted that both vendor and purchaser had been mistaken and granted relief. The Federal Court of Malaysia reversed his decision. The estate’s representatives appealed to the Privy Council.
Issues
The first issue was whether sufficiently convincing evidence established a mistake shared by both parties, despite Lot 3660 being expressly listed in the documents. The second was whether the purchaser’s registered, indefeasible title under the Torrens system prevented equitable rectification after the transfer.
Decision and reasoning
The Privy Council allowed the appeal. Lord Russell of Killowen delivered the Board’s judgment. It restored Gill J’s order, with an adjustment to the payment mechanism.
The Board accepted that neither party knew or intended, when signing the contract, that the village property was included. This conclusion rested on the evidence as a whole. The agreement referred to produce from the land rather than rent from a house; the supporting application described old rubber land; and the trial judge had accepted evidence about the negotiations and rejected the purchaser’s competing account. The Federal Court had been wrong to substitute its assessment of that evidence.
The express reference to Lot 3660 was an obstacle the claimants had to overcome, but it did not make rectification impossible. The Board considered the evidence sufficiently convincing to justify correcting the transaction. It did not hold that a shared mistake automatically made the entire sale void.
Registration did not defeat the remedy. The purchaser’s argument confused protection of registered title against competing claims with personal obligations arising from his own dealings. Equity could act in personam—against the registered proprietor personally—to require a retransfer. The Torrens provisions did not exclude that jurisdiction where the relationship between the parties justified equitable intervention.
The remedy therefore required Lot 3660 to be returned to the estate. Gill J had made relief conditional on a $250 payment. Because the purchaser’s liability for the successful appellants’ costs would exceed that amount, the Board removed the requirement to pay it into court and instead credited him with $250 against those costs.
