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:

Partition the property between all the co-proprietors; or
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

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