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.

Sorotan Terkini

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILELGAL MONEYLENDERS – WHEN LOANS CROSS THE LINE: KEY LESSONS FROM SHIM VUI GEH V DAYANG MASTURAH ON ILLEGAL MONEYLENDING AND PROPERTY SECURITY

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

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.

16 Disember ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

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.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami