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.

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »

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 »
ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami