Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm
Berita Terkini
I have just taken vacant possession of my new strata property. I have discovered that the ceiling is leaking. I have requested the developer to fix it. They did not. They kept delaying. What can I do?
I am in the midst of getting the strata title transferred into my name. However, the developer is charging me administrative charges of RM250.00 per month. Can they do that?
“What is the procedure to get my strata title?”
The Covid-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc to business operations in the world. Performance of contracts in Malaysia is disrupted as the Movement Control Order.
If you live in a Strata Property, can you demand your Management to clean up areas suspected to be infected with the outbreak of corona virus?
“Can I terminate the agreement as evidenced in the proforma sale form or booking form by relying on the doctrine of frustration?”
Continue reading to find out how to deal with booking form during this MCO period
Does force majeure clause in an SPA applies during Movement Control Order (“MCO”) to extend time under an SPA?
In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.
Can a simple loan lead to a legal battle over property ownership? This case reveals how improper security arrangements and high-interest rates can turn financial help into a courtroom showdown, highlighting the critical importance of understanding loan agreements and compliance with the law.
In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.
In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.
In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.
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.
MY 
EN 
ZH