Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

PROPERTY LAW – CO-PROPRIETORSHIP – TERMINATION

YHA have in our earlier legal updates set out the remedy of termination of co-proprietorship for properties. See the following URL.

PROPERTY LAW – CO-PROPRIETORSHIP – TERMINATION
LAND LAW – CO-PROPRIETORSHIP – TERMINATION

This legal updates will set out whether there is a need for co-proprietor to first show there is a request for land to be partitioned before applying to court for termination of co-proprietorship for land to be sold.

As we have stated in our earlier updates, as co-proprietors, you may apply to the court to either:

  1. Partition the property between all the co-proprietors; or
  2. terminate the co-proprietorship in the property via sale of land and proceeds be equally divided equally among co-proprietors on the ground that there is a deadlock.

Do you have to satisfy the court item (i) i.e. the property has to be partitioned first before you apply for termination under item (ii) for the property be sold?

  • No. There is no requirement in Section 145 of the National Land Code 1965 (“NLC 1965”) that co-proprietor who wished to terminate his co-proprietorship on the land by sale to first show that he had earlier applied for the land to be partitioned, but the application was rejected.
  • An application can be made straight for item (ii) i.e. termination of co-proprietorship for the property to be sold and proceeds to be divided amongst co-proprietors.
  • As we have highlighted in our legal updates Land Law Co Proprietorship Termination , application for partition of the land would require compliance to Section 136 of the National Land Code 1965 (“NLC 1965”). Partitioning of land is a complicated and expensive process.
  • The court has decided that this partitioning remedy (which is more onerous) does not have to be first complied. Co-proprietors can proceed with item (ii) option.
  • Besides Section 145 of the NLC 1965, the High Court too has power to have the property sold without partitioning under O. 31 r 1 of the Rules of Court 2012 and Para 3 Schedule of the Courts of Judicature Act 1964.
  • Case in point : Ong Chin Hai & Anor v Ong Hoo See & Ors [2022] 5 MLJ 690
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Sorotan Terkini

LEGAL UPDATES – THE SILENT CURVE: WHY MEDICAL PREMIUMS SUDDENLY SPIKE

Medical insurance premiums do not increase gradually. They rise exponentially. For many years, costs appear manageable, giving policyholders a false sense of stability. However, once the insured reaches their mid-60s, medical charges begin to accelerate sharply, and after age 70, they often outpace the premiums by several multiples.

This happens because medical insurance is funded from a finite pool of money – an investment “bucket” – while the medical rider functions like an engine that consumes more fuel as the insured ages. When the engine grows faster than the bucket can be replenished, depletion is inevitable. The result is sudden premium hikes, demands for top-ups, or policy lapse – not due to misconduct or missed payments, but due to the structural design of the product itself.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

THE ‘COVER UNTIL 99’ MYTH – WHY INSURANCE AGENTS GET IT WRONG

Consumers must stop relying on what insurance agents say and start reading what insurance policies actually provide. ‘Medical cover until 99’ does not mean guaranteed coverage at an affordable premium. In reality, medical insurance charges rise exponentially after age 70, often making the policy mathematically unsustainable. By the time policyholders realise this, they are told to top up tens of thousands of ringgit or lose coverage altogether.

Read More »
8 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

STRATA TITLES ACT – DEVELOPER MUST ACCOUNT FOR COMMON PROPERTY COMPENSATION: HIGH COURT IMPOSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST

In JMB Kelana Square v Perantara Properties Sdn Bhd & Ors [2025] 12 MLJ 51, the High Court held that a developer who received compensation for land compulsorily acquired for the LRT 3 project could not retain sums attributable to common property. Although the compensation was paid entirely to the developer as registered proprietor, the Court found that part of the acquired land constituted common property, and the developer therefore held RM6.05 million on constructive trust for the Joint Management Body. The decision affirms that JMBs have proprietary standing to recover compensation for common property and that courts will intervene to prevent unjust enrichment in strata developments.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

UNFAIR DISMISSAL – MEDICAL LEAVE IS NOT MISCONDUCT: HIGH COURT UPHOLDS INDUSTRIAL COURT’S PROTECTION OF SICK EMPLOYEE

In Aerodarat Services Sdn Bhd v Lawerance Raj a/l Arrulsamy & Anor [2025] 11 MLJ 26, the High Court dismissed an employer’s judicial review and affirmed that prolonged medical leave does not, by itself, amount to misconduct justifying dismissal. The Court held that the employer failed to prove the critical element of intention not to return to work or unwillingness to perform contractual duties, despite high absenteeism caused by serious illness and surgery. The ruling reinforces that employers must distinguish between genuine illness and misconduct, and cannot rely on medical absence alone to terminate employment.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

WILL AND PROBATE – COURT OF APPEAL INVALIDATES WILL OF 97-YEAR-OLD TESTATOR: CAPACITY, SUSPICION AND UNDUE INFLUENCE PROVED

In Kong Kin Lay & Ors v Kong Kin Siong & Ors [2025] 5 MLJ 891, the Court of Appeal set aside a will executed by a 97-year-old testator, holding that there was real doubt as to testamentary capacity, compounded by serious suspicious circumstances and undue influence by certain beneficiaries. The Court emphasised that while the “golden rule” is not a rule of law, failure to obtain medical confirmation of capacity where doubt exists is a grave omission. Credibility issues with the drafting solicitor, beneficiary involvement in the will’s preparation, and suppression of evidence led the Court to declare the will invalid and order intestacy.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan

NOT AN ‘AGREEMENT TO AGREE’: ENGLISH COURT OF APPEAL SAVES LONG-TERM SUPPLY CONTRACT DESPITE OPEN PRICE CLAUSE

In KSY Juice Blends UK Ltd v Citrosuco GmbH [2025] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 581, the UK Court of Appeal held that a long-term supply contract was not unenforceable merely because part of the price was stated as “open price to be fixed”. The Court implied a term that, in the absence of agreement, the price would be a reasonable or market price, noting that the product’s value could be objectively benchmarked against the market price of frozen concentrated orange juice. Emphasising that courts should preserve commercial bargains rather than destroy them, the decision confirms that section 8(2) of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 operates as a saving provision, not a bar to enforceability.

Read More »
1 Februari ,2026 Tiada Ulasan
ms_MYMY
en_USEN zh_TWZH ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami