Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

COVID-19 AMENDMENT BILL 2021

In brief 

The Temporary Measures for Reducing the Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID 19) Amendment Bill 2021 was enacted by the Dewan Rakyat of Parliament on December16,2021. The bill was referred to as the Covid 19 Amendment Bill.

What is the new context in Covid 19 Amendment Bill?

  1. Part XIA
  • The Covid-19 Amendment Bill adds a new Part XIA to the home development laws, which makes significant charges. We like to discuss the six major adjustments that will have an impact on housing developers and buyers.

a. Agreement and First Agreement

  •  As can be seen in Schedule G, H, I and J, the term ‘agreement’ basically means sale and purchase agreement under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989.
  • However, the terms of ‘first agreement’ only applies between the first buyer of the property and the developer but this does not apply to the subsequent purchasers, therefore they will not enjoy the relief measures.

b. Late payment charges- Developers cannot charge

  •  The developer shall not impose any late payment costs for unpaid instalments between 1 January 2021 and 31 December 2021, according to Clause 38B in the bill. The waiver of late payment penalties is only valid for the first agreement signed before May 31, 2021.

Q. I bought a house from developer A and failed to pay the monthly payments for the months of June to September during MCO. Is it possible for developer A to charge me late fees for the three months of unpaid instalments?

A. No, if the purchaser failed to pay any instalment under the schedule of payment for the period from 1 January 2021 – 31 December 2021, the developer cannot impose any late payment charges in respect of such unpaid instalments. However, subsequent purchasers will not enjoy these benefits.

c. Developer can apply for extension of delivery of vacant possession

  •  Clause 38C of the Bill states that the developer may apply to the Minister for an exemption from the calculation of late delivery of vacant possession or completion of common facilities for any period between January 1, 2021 and December 31, 2021 if the Minister is satisfied that the inability was caused by the COVID-19 control or prevention measures specified, made, or taken under Act 342

Q. What if you bought a house from developer A and they failed to deliver the vacant possession and incomplete common facilities for the household? Are they liable to pay the penalties for failing to deliver vacant possession and incompletion of common facilities?

A. No, if the developer fails to complete everything by the time given, they are exempted from the calculation of late delivery of vacant possession or completion of common facilities for any period between 1 January,2021 till 31 December, 2021 only if the minister is satisfied that the inability was caused by the COVID-19 control or prevention measures specified, made, or taken under Act 342

d. Taking of Vacant Possession

  •  Section 38D of the Bill states that if the purchaser is unable to take vacant possession during the period 1 June 2021 to 31 October 2021 or any other time not covered by clause 38C above, the purchaser is not deemed to have taken vacant possession. During the full lockdown in 2021, the mobility control limitations were in effect from June 1 to October 31, 2021.

Q. What if you have bought a house from developer A and you have to move in by the given timeframe from the developer, however you are unable to do so. Does that mean that you have taken vacant possession of the property?

A. No, the purchaser is not regarded to have taken vacant possession if he or she is unable to do so during the period 1 June 2021 to 31 October 2021, or any other time not covered by clause 38C above.

e. Exclusion of calculation of defect liability period

  • The period from 1 June 2021 to 31 October 2021 shall also be excluded from the calculation of the defect liability term, according to Clause 38E of the Bill.

Q. I have taken vacant possession of my new house on 2.5.2020, when is my defect liability period ends?

A. Assuming your defect liability term is 24 months and you shall have another extra 4 months and 30 days under the Covid-19 act.

f. Saving

  •  The bills stated that any legal procedures begun, or any judgement or award obtained, to recover late payment charges owed by the purchaser or liquidated damages would be unaffected by the revisions in section 38B, 38C, 38D, and 38E.

2) On the other hand, the new Covid-19 Amendment Bills 2021 have also added two new sections which are;

  1. Section 40A states that under the Industry Relations Act of 1967, the period from 1 June 2021 to 31 December 2021 will be omitted from the calculation of the period for according recognition, making a report and filing of representation and;
  2. Section 40B held that under the Industrial Relations Act 1967, any employer, trade union of employers, trade union of workers, or worker who is in a place subject to an enhanced movement control order is excluded from the calculation of the period.

3) Part XIIIA and XIIIB

a. XIIIA (Modifications to the Sabah Labour Ordinance)

  •  Section 42B, which allows employees to file a complaint under paragraph 7A(3), has been extended from June 1, 2021, to the expiration date of this Act, but not beyond December 31, 2022. Section 42C, on the other hand, states that an employee who is in a location subject to an enhanced movement restriction order is exempt from the calculation of the time limit for filing a complaint under paragraph 7A(3).

b. XIIIB (Modifications to the Sarawak Labour Ordinance)

  • Section 42E stated that the period from May 29, 2021 to October 31, 2021 should be excluded from the calculation of the period for filing a complaint under paragraph 8A(3), whereas Section 42(F) refers to employees who are subject to an enhanced movement control order.

 

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 No Comments

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 February ,2026 No Comments

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 February ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us