Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

EQUITY – RELIEF PT. 1: RECOVERING POSSESSION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY

Specific Relief is a type of judicial redress under the discretion of the courts to do equity. It arises from the equitable maxim “whenever there is a wrong, there must be a remedy” or “equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy”. This is as opposed to damages and monetary compensation.

The type of relief that can be granted goes beyond granting damages under common law. Although certain types of relief (e.g. rectification of instruments, rescission of contracts, cancellation of instruments, and enforcement of public duties) in the Specific Relief Act 1950 (“SRA 1950”) have not been mentioned, under section 4 of SRA 1950, specific relief is given:-

  1. by taking possession of certain property and delivering it to the claimant;
  2. by ordering a party to do the very act which he is under an obligation to do;
  3. by preventing a party from doing that which he is under an obligation not to do;
  4. by determining and declaring the rights of parties otherwise than by an award of compensation; or
  5. by appointing a receiver.

Recovering Possession of Immovable Property

Under section 7 of the SRA, subsection (1) provides that a person entitled to the possession of specific immovable property may recover it in the manner prescribed by the law relating to civil procedure. This is contained in the procedures on summary proceedings for possession of land in the Rules of Court 2012 (“ROC 2012”) under order 89. Subsection (1) applies to a registered proprietor, tenant or licensee of immovable property acting against an unlawful occupier on the property. The word “may” in subsection (1) has been interpreted in Trustees of Leong San Tong Khoo Kongsi (Penang) Registered & Ors v Poh Swee Siang to mean that the person entitled to possession has the choice to either recovering possession through “self-help” or to resort to court action.

In the case of Er Eng Hong & Anor v New Kim Eng dan Tiap-Tiap Pemegang Yang Menduduki atas Sebahagian Tanah Yang Dikenali Sebagai HS(M) 2162 PTD 4403, Mukim Benut, Daerah Pontian, the court established that a landlord or his successor in title no longer has the self-help remedy of forcibly evicting the tenant or occupier. This means that a landlord may no longer take the law into his own hands when it comes to dispossessing a tenant over or any occupier on the land upon expiry of the tenancy.

Under section 7(2) of the SRA 1950, where a specific immovable property has been rented out under a tenancy, and that tenancy is terminated or comes to an end but the occupier continues to remain in occupation of the property or part thereof, the landlord shall not enforce his right to recover it against the occupier except by way of court proceedings. This section therefore applies to a tenant holding over, in other words, a tenant who has overstayed even after the end of the tenancy period.

Section 7(2) will only apply if three circumstances are fulfilled as follows:-

  1. there is a letting (renting out) of specific immovable property;
  2. the tenancy is terminated or has come to an end; and
  3. the occupier continues to remain in occupation of the property or part thereof.

Section 7(3) limits the application of section 7(2) to a lawful occupier at the beginning of the tenancy and so excludes unlawful occupiers.

Where a person entitled to possession dispossesses an occupier other than under section 7 of the SRA 1950, the occupier may act under section 8 of the SRA 1950 and claim possession of the property by showing that he has a better right to possession. The elements that must be proved by the occupier in an action for recovery of property under section 8 are as follows:-

  1. that he was dispossessed without his consent;
  2. that he was dispossessed other than in due course of law;
  3. that the suit is not against the government.

Recent Post

FAMILY LAW – CHILDREN’S CUSTODY – CUSTODY DISPUTES IN MALAYSIA: ESSENTIAL INSIGHTS ON CHILD WELFARE AND PARENTAL ROLES

In a recent custody dispute, the court emphasized the importance of child welfare, reaffirming the maternal custody presumption for young children unless strong evidence suggests otherwise. In high-conflict situations, the court favored sole custody over joint arrangements to minimize stress on the children. This case underscores that Malaysian parents should provide credible evidence for their claims and focus on practical, child-centered solutions.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – DAMAGES – FORESEEABILITY AND FAIRNESS IN FREIGHT LIABILITY CLAIMS

In JSD Corporation v Tri-Line Express [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 285, the court set a clear precedent on damages for property claims, ruling that only foreseeable and proportionate losses are recoverable. Applying principles akin to Hadley v Baxendale, the court allowed for repair costs if intent to remedy was evident but rejected double recovery, underscoring that damages must reflect actual loss without overcompensation. This decision serves as a guide for Malaysian courts, emphasizing fair and balanced recovery in line with foreseeable damages.

Read More »

ADMIRALTY IN REM – SHIPPING — FUEL OR FREIGHT? COURT CLEARS THE AIR ON GLOBAL FALCON BUNKER DISPUTE

In a decisive ruling on the Global Falcon bunker dispute, the court dismissed Meck Petroleum’s admiralty claim for unpaid high-sulphur fuel, finding that the fuel was supplied not for operational purposes but as cargo. With the vessel lacking necessary equipment to use high-sulphur fuel and evidence pointing to its transfer to another vessel, the court determined that Meck’s claim fell outside admiralty jurisdiction, leading to the release of the vessel and potential damages for wrongful arrest.

Read More »

COLLISION COURSE – COURT WEIGHS ANCHOR DRAGGING AND LIABILITY AT SEA

In a collision that underscores the high stakes of maritime vigilance, the court ruled that Belpareil bore the brunt of the blame for failing to control its dragging anchor and delaying critical warnings. Yet, Kiran Australia wasn’t off the hook entirely—apportioned 30% fault for its limited evasive action, the case serves as a stark reminder: in maritime law, all vessels share responsibility in averting disaster, even when one party’s errors loom large.

Read More »

GENERAL AVERAGE – PIRATE RANSOM DISPUTE: SUPREME COURT RULES CARGO OWNERS LIABLE IN THE POLAR CASE

In the landmark case Herculito Maritime Ltd v Gunvor International BV (The Polar) [2024] 1 Lloyd’s Rep. 85, the English Supreme Court upheld the shipowner’s right to recover a USD 7.7 million ransom paid to Somali pirates under general average. The Court ruled that cargo interests, despite their arguments regarding charterparty terms and insurance obligations, were liable to contribute to the ransom payment. This decision reinforces the importance of clear contractual provisions when seeking to limit or exclude liability in maritime contracts particularly matter relating to general average.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us