Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

LAND LAW – CO-PROPRIETORSHIP – TERMINATION

We have in our earlier legal updates on Property Law Co-Proprietorship-Termination set out how you may apply to court to terminate the co-proprietorship either by partition, sale or transfer when there is a deadlock.

Q: Do I have to first apply to the land office before applying to court to terminate the co-proprietorship?
No. The new insertion of Section 141A in the National Land Code 1965 (“NLC 1965”) gives co-proprietor as an alternative avenue to apply to the land office to terminate the co-proprietorship when there is a deadlock. Section 141A is a “permissive section”.

You can make an application to the court terminate co-proprietorship under Section 145; even before an application is made under s. 141A.

Q: What are the criteria for partition under both s. 141A and 145 of the NCL 1965?
The applicant has to comply with the criteria in Section 136 of the NLC 1965 as follows:

  • The partition would not contravene any restriction in interest of the land;
  • The partition would not contravene any laws;
  • Approval from the planning authority is obtained;
  • The partition would not contravene any plan approved by the State          Authority of the development area which the land is located;
  • If State Authority consent is required, consent has to be obtained;
  • No land revenue is outstanding;
  • Consent in writing is obtained from chargee, leasee or lienholder;
  • If it is an agriculture land, the area of partition should not be less than 2/5 of a hectare and for any other land, the land size should not be smaller than what is determined by the planning authority;
  • The land after partition is suitable for its intended use; and
  • The partitioned land would have a satisfactory means of access.

Recent Post

JURISDICTION – CHOOSING THE RIGHT COURT: THE SEA JUSTICE CASE HIGHLIGHTS WHERE MARITIME DISPUTES SHOULD BE HEARD

In The Sea Justice cases [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 383 and [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 429, the Singapore courts tackled a key question: which country should handle a maritime dispute when incidents span international waters? After examining the location of the collision, existing limitation funds in China, and witness availability, the courts concluded that China was the more appropriate forum. This ruling highlights that courts will often defer to the jurisdiction with the closest ties to the incident, ensuring efficient and fair handling of cross-border maritime disputes. This approach is also relevant in Malaysia, where similar principles apply.

Read More »

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

Read More »

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

Read More »

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

Read More »

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

Read More »
en_USEN
× Contact Us