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

Sorotan Terkini

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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 »
31 Oktober ,2024 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami