Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

CORONAVIRUS DISEASE 2019 (COVID-19) ACT 2020

What is Covid-19 Act 2020?
It is a written law to provide temporary measures in reducing the negative impacts of Covid-19 pandemic to individuals and companies.

When did Covid-19 Act 2020 come into force?
23 October 2020.

 What is in the Covid-19 Act 2020?

  1. LIMITATION ACT 1953

The Covid-19 Act extended time limitation to commence legal action. Any limitation period which expires from 18.3.2020 – 31.8.2020 shall be extended to 31.12.2020. For example:

Q: I have loaned RM10,000.00 to A on 2.8.2014. A refuses to return me the money. When is the last day I can sue A?

A: Before the commencement of the Covid-19 Act, the last day for you to sue A is on 1.8.2020 (6 years limitation period applies). However, you now have until 31.12.2020 to sue A.

  1. INSOLVENCY ACT 1967

The Covid-19 Act increases the threshold to commence bankruptcy petition from RM50,000.00 to RM100,000.00. For example:

Q: I owe the bank RM70,000.00. Can the bank file a bankruptcy petition against me?

A: No. Before the coming into force of the Covid-19 Act, if you owe the bank for more than RM50,000.00, the bank can do so. However, under the Covid-19 Act, the creditor can only file a bankruptcy petition if the amount of debt is more than RM100,000.00.

  1. HIRE-PURCHASE ACT 1967

Q: I have a hire purchase agreement with Bank P. However, during the Movement Control Order (“MCO”), I have failed to pay more than 2 months of instalments. Can the bank take possession of my car?

A:   No. The bank cannot take possession of any goods i.e. your car for failure of payment of instalments for the period from 1.4.2020 – 30.9.2020.

  1. CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 1999

If you have a credit sale agreement entered before 18.3.2020 and there are no overdue instalments before 18.3.2020, you have 3 options. The credit facility provider cannot sue you for the outstanding payment. For example:

Q: I have bought an iPhone 11 on 17.3.2020 via credit sale agreement with Maxis. During MCO, I have failed to pay 2 months of instalments. What are my options?

A:   If Maxis issue you notice of overdue payment, you can choose to either pay the overdue instalments, pay off the entire credit sale agreement or return your iPhone 11 to Maxis. Maxis is also not allowed to commence legal action to recover the outstanding amount from you.

  1. DISTRESS ACT 1951

Q: I have rented a room in Condominium Y. During MCO, I have failed to pay my rental for the period from April – July 2020. Can my landlord get a warrant of distress and seize my goods and sell them off for the purpose of recovering the rental?

A: No. If the tenant is unable to pay rental for the period from 18.3.2020 – 31.8.2020, the landlord is not allowed to seize the tenant’s goods and sell them to recover the arrears under the Distress Act 1951.

  1. HOUSING DEVELOPMENT (CONTROL AND LICENSING) ACT 1966

(i) Late payment charges

Q:   I have bought a house from developer Y. During MCO, I have failed to pay instalments for the period from April – June 2020 to developer Y. Can developer Y impose late payment charges on me for the 3 months of unpaid instalments?

A:   No. If the purchaser failed to pay any instalment under the schedule of payment for the period from 18.3.2020 – 31.8.2020, the developer cannot impose any late payment charges in respect of such unpaid instalments. You may apply for extension of this period until 31.12.2020.

(ii)    Delivery of vacant possession (“VP”) and liquidated damages (“LAD”)

Q: I have bought a house from developer Z. The expected date for the delivery of VP is on 1.6.2020. However, developer Z has failed to deliver the VP on 1.6.2020 and deliver the VP on 15.8.2020. Can I claim LAD from developer Z for late of delivery of VP?

A: No. The period from 18.3.2020 – 31.8.2020 shall be excluded from the calculation of the LAD.

(iii)   Defect liability period (“DLP”)

The period from 18.3.2020 – 31.8.2020 shall be excluded from the calculation of DLP.

Q:   I have taken VP of my new house on 1.5.2019, when is my DLP ending?

A:   Assuming your DLP is 24 months and you shall have another extra 5 months and 13 days under the Covid-19 Act, it should end on 13.10.2021. However, you may even apply to the Minister for extension of another extra 4 months. In such event, your DLP will then end on 12.2.2022

  1. INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS ACT 1967

Q:   My boss has fired me on 31.5.2020. When is the last day for me to file a representation to the Industrial Relation Department?

A:    You have 60 days to file a representation. However, the period from 18.3.2020 – 9.6.2020 will not be counted in the 60 days period.

Do you require further assistance ? do contact us directly at http://yhalaw.com.my/contact-us

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us