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

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

BREACH OF CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE – FORCE MAJEURE UNPACKED: WHEN ‘REASONABLE ENDEAVOURS’ DON’T BEND CONTRACT TERMS

The UK Supreme Court clarified the limits of force majeure clauses, ruling that “reasonable endeavours” do not require a party to accept alternative performance outside the agreed contract terms. This decision emphasizes that force majeure clauses are meant to uphold, not alter, original obligations – even in unexpected circumstances. The case serves as a reminder for businesses to define alternative options explicitly within their contracts if flexibility is desired.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

NEGLIGENCE – MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE – HOSPITAL ACCOUNTABILITY REINFORCED: COURT UPHOLDS NON-DELEGABLE DUTY IN MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE

In a landmark ruling, the court reinforced the hospital’s non-delegable duty of care, holding that even when services are outsourced to independent contractors, the hospital remains accountable for patient welfare. This decision emphasizes that vulnerable patients, reliant on medical institutions, must be safeguarded against harm caused by third-party providers. The ruling ultimately rejected the hospital’s defense of independence for contracted consultants, underscoring a high standard of duty owed to patients.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

CONTRACTS – CONTRACT FOR THE SALE OF GOODS FOB – REMOTENESS OF DAMAGES IN BACK-TO-BACK CONTRACTS – COURT DEFINES LIMITS ON LIABILITY

In a complex dispute involving back-to-back contracts, the court clarified the boundaries for assessing damages, emphasizing that a chain of contracts does not automatically ensure liability passes through. Although substantial losses resulted from delays and disruption, the court highlighted the importance of the remoteness of damages, noting that each contract’s unique terms ultimately limited liability. This decision emphasise the need for parties in chain contracts to carefully define indemnity and liability provisions, as damages are assessed based on foreseeability rather than simply the structure of linked agreements.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

TORT – BREAKING CONFIDENTIALITY – COURT CRACKS DOWN ON INSIDER LEAKS AND CORPORATE CONSPIRACY

In a recent ruling on corporate confidentiality, the court held two former employees liable for disclosing sensitive business information to a competitor, deeming it a breach of both employment contracts and fiduciary duties. This case highlights the serious consequences of unauthorized sharing of proprietary data and reinforces that such disclosures can lead to substantial legal and financial repercussions, even for the receiving parties if they knowingly benefit from confidential information.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

PROPERTY LAW – CLAIMING OWNERSHIP: COURT UPHOLDS LEGAL TITLE AND DISMISSES CONSTRUCTIVE TRUST IN PROPERTY DISPUTE

In a recent property dispute, the court dismissed a claim for a constructive trust over property, underscoring that such a trust requires solid evidence of unfair conduct or fraud. Without sufficient proof of ownership.

17 November ,2024 Tiada Ulasan

MY

× Hubungi Kami