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

Sorotan Terkini

CIVIL PROCEDURE – STRIKE OUT UNDER ORDER 18 RULE 19(1)(A),(B) RULES OF COURT 2012 – EXTENSION OF TIME APPLICATION

In Badan Pengurusan Subang Parkhomes v Zen Estates Sdn Bhd [2025] MLJU 3591, the High Court reaffirmed that non-compliance with Order 37 Rule 1(5) of the Rules of Court 2012 does not automatically invalidate assessment of damages proceedings. The Court held that procedural rules must be read with the overriding objective of ensuring justice, and that the six-month time limit to file a Notice of Appointment is directory, not mandatory. Finding no prejudice to the defendant and noting active case management by the plaintiff, the Court dismissed the developer’s strike-out bid and allowed an extension of time for assessment to proceed. The decision underscores the judiciary’s commitment to substantive fairness over procedural rigidity in post-judgment proceedings.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – PURE ECONOMIC LOSS BAR REAFFIRMED: MMC LIABLE FOR NEGLIGENCE BUT PROTECTED FROM LOST PROFIT CLAIMS

In Asia Pacific Higher Learning Sdn Bhd v Majlis Perubatan Malaysia & Anor [2025] MLJU 3144, the High Court awarded over RM2 million in damages against the Malaysian Medical Council (MMC) for negligence, breach of statutory duty, and misfeasance during its accreditation of Lincoln University College’s medical programmes. While the court allowed direct financial losses such as survey costs, it barred claims exceeding RM550 million for lost profits, reaffirming the Federal Court’s rulings in Steven Phoa and UDA Holdings that pure economic loss is not recoverable from public or statutory bodies. The second defendant was further ordered to pay RM100,000 in exemplary damages for acting with targeted malice, marking a rare personal liability finding against a regulatory officer.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

ERINFORD INJUNCTION – COURT OF APPEAL CLARIFIES: EX-PARTE ERINFORD INJUNCTIONS ARE THE EXCEPTION, NOT THE RULE

In Edisijuta Parking Sdn Bhd v TH Universal Builders Sdn Bhd & Anor [2025] 5 MLJ 524, the Court of Appeal clarified that ex parte Erinford injunctions at the appellate stage should only be granted in truly exceptional circumstances where giving notice would defeat the purpose of the order. Wong Kian Kheong JCA held that, under rule 50 of the Rules of the Court of Appeal 1994, such applications should generally be heard inter partes to ensure fairness and prevent abuse. Exercising powers under section 44(1) of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964, the Court granted a conditional interim Erinford injunction pending appeal, fortified by a RM200,000 deposit and an undertaking to pay damages. The ruling provides clear guidance on balancing urgency, procedural fairness, and judicial efficiency in appellate injunctions.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

TOTAL FAILURE CONSIDERATION – FEDERAL COURT OVERRULES BERJAYA TIMES SQUARE: TOTAL FAILURE OF CONSIDERATION REDEFINED

In Lim Swee Choo & Anor v Ong Koh Hou @ Won Kok Fong [2025] 6 MLJ 327, the Federal Court unanimously overruled Berjaya Times Square Sdn Bhd v M Concept Sdn Bhd and clarified that the doctrine of total failure of consideration applies only to restitutionary relief, not to contractual termination. The Court held that the correct test is whether the promisor has performed any part of the contractual duties in respect of which payment is due, adopting Stocznia Gdanska SA v Latvian Shipping Co [1998] 1 WLR 574. Finding that the appellants had partly performed their obligations and the respondent had derived benefits, the Court rejected the respondent’s claim for restitution and restored the appellants’ contractual claim. The landmark decision restores clarity between contract and restitution, reinforcing commercial certainty in Malaysian law.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACT (BILL OF LADING) – NO DUTY TO DETECT FRAUD: COURT CLEARS MAERSK OF LIABILITY FOR FALSE CONTAINER WEIGHTS

In Stournaras Stylianos Monoprosopi EPE v Maersk A/S [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 323, the English Commercial Court held that carriers are not liable for fraudulent misdeclarations by shippers where bills of lading are issued for sealed containers. The Court ruled that Maersk had no duty to verify or cross-check declared weights against Verified Gross Mass (VGM) data under the SOLAS Convention, as its obligation under the Hague Rules extended only to the apparent external condition of cargo. However, the judgment signals that a limited duty of care could arise in future where a carrier is put on notice of fraud. For now, carriers may rely on shipper declarations, but consignees must exercise commercial vigilance and due diligence when relying on bills for payment.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan

EXEMPLARY DAMAGES – STATUTORY BODY DUTY – DAMAGES – OBTAINING APPROVAL

In Big Man Management Sdn Bhd v Tenaga Nasional Bhd [2025] 5 MLJ 290, the Federal Court reinstated nearly RM3.56 million in special damages and awarded RM100,000 in exemplary damages against TNB for wrongfully disconnecting electricity to an ice factory. The Court ruled that “strict proof” of special damages does not mean a higher burden beyond the civil standard of proof and affirmed that TNB, as a statutory monopoly, breached its statutory duty by using disconnection as leverage to collect payment. The judgment underscores that public utilities cannot misuse statutory powers, and consumers wrongfully deprived of essential services may be entitled to punitive remedies in exceptional cases.

Read More »
16 November ,2025 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami