Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

STRATA TITLE AND ADMINISTRATIVE FEE

I am in the midst of getting the strata title transferred into my name. However, the developer is charging me administrative charges of RM250.00 per month. Can they do that?

  1. If your property is governed under HDR 1989
    If your property is “a housing accommodation” and the sale is governed under the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989 (“HDR 1989”), then the developer is NOT entitled to charge any administrative fee. This is because Schedule H or G of HDR 1989 provides that the developer shall “at no additional costs and expense to the Purchaser” execute a valid and registrable instrument of transfer (commonly known as the MOT) to the purchaser together with a separate strata title.
  2. If your property is NOT governed under HDR 1989
    However, if your property is not governed under the HDR 1989, you would have to check your sale and purchase agreement and see if there is similar clause. If there is no such clause, we are of the view that administrative charges imposed has to satisfy the “reasonability test” imposed by the developer in KAB Corp Sdn Bhd & Anor v Master Platform Sdn Bhd and another appeal [2019] 6 MLJ 752. Although the facts in KAB Corp Sdn Bhd (Supra) relates to administrative fee imposed by developer to sign consent to assign, the law relating to imposition of administrative fees applies with equal force to administrative fee imposed by developer to execute MOT. Administrative fee should not be arbitrary, unreasonable, unfair and oppressive. The requirement of reasonableness is an implied term which has the force of law. It has to consider the work of keeping and updating records by Developer. Keeping in mind that there is a common responsibility of developer to keep those records to uphold the beneficial interest of the buyers. Hence, we are of the view that the nominal administrative fee of RM500 applies in KAB Corp would apply in this instance. The developer should not charge administrative fee of more than RM500.

Sorotan Terkini

NAVIGATION AND SHIPPING LAW – COLLISION REGULATIONS – COLLISION AT SEA – A WAKE-UP CALL FOR ADHERING TO NAVIGATION RULES

The collision between the FMG Sydney and MSC Apollo highlights the critical importance of adhering to established navigation rules. Deviations, delayed actions, and reliance on radio communications instead of clear, early maneuvers can lead to disastrous outcomes. This case serves as a stark reminder for mariners: follow the rules, act decisively, and prioritize safety above assumptions.

Read More »

SHIPPING AND ADMIRALTY IN REM – A SINKING ASSET – COURT ORDERS SALE OF ARRESTED VESSEL TO PRESERVE CLAIM SECURITY

In a landmark admiralty decision, the High Court ordered the pendente lite sale of the arrested vessel Shi Pu 1, emphasizing the principle of preserving claim security over the defendant’s financial incapacity. The court ruled that the vessel, deemed a “wasting asset,” could not remain under arrest indefinitely without proper maintenance or security. This case reinforces the necessity for shipowners to manage arrested assets proactively to prevent significant financial and legal repercussions.

Read More »

EMPLOYMENT LAW – IS DIRECTOR A DIRECTOR OR EMPLOYEE? UNPACKING DUAL ROLES IN EMPLOYMENT LAW

The Court of Appeal clarified the dual roles of directors as both shareholders and employees, affirming that executive directors can qualify as “workmen” under the Industrial Relations Act 1967. The decision emphasizes that removal as a director does not equate to lawful dismissal as an employee unless due process is followed. This case highlights the importance of distinguishing shareholder rights from employment protections, ensuring companies navigate such disputes with clarity and fairness.

Read More »

COMMERCIAL CONTRACT – FORCE MAJEURE OR JUST EXCUSES? LESSONS FROM LITASCO V DER MOND OIL [2024] 2 LLOYD’S REP 593

The recent decision in Litasco SA v Der Mond Oil and Gas Africa SA [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 593 highlights the strict thresholds required to invoke defences such as force majeure and trade sanctions in commercial disputes. The English Commercial Court dismissed claims of misrepresentation and found that banking restrictions and sanctions did not excuse payment obligations under the crude oil contract. This judgment reinforces the importance of precise contractual drafting and credible evidence in defending against payment claims, serving as a cautionary tale for businesses navigating international trade and legal obligations.

Read More »

SHIPPING – LETTER OF CREDIT – LESSONS FROM UNICREDIT’S FRAUD CLAIM AGAINST GLENCORE

The Singapore Court of Appeal’s decision in Unicredit Bank AG v Glencore Singapore Pte Ltd [2024] 2 Lloyd’s Rep 624 reaffirms the principle of autonomy in letters of credit and highlights the high evidentiary threshold for invoking the fraud exception. Unicredit’s claim of deceit was dismissed as the court found no evidence of false representations by Glencore, emphasizing that banks deal with documents, not underlying transactions. This case serves as a critical reminder for international trade practitioners to prioritize clear documentation and robust due diligence to mitigate risks in financial transactions.

Read More »

LAND LAW – PROPERTY SOLD TWICE: OWNERSHIP NOT TRANSFERRED IN FIRST SALE

This legal update examines the Court of Appeal’s decision in Malayan Banking Bhd v Mohd Affandi bin Ahmad & Anor [2024] 1 MLJ 1, which reaffirmed the binding nature of valid Sale and Purchase Agreements (SPAs) and the establishment of constructive trust. The court dismissed claims of deferred indefeasibility by subsequent purchasers and a chargee bank, emphasizing the critical importance of due diligence in property transactions. The decision serves as a cautionary tale for financial institutions and vendors, reinforcing the need for meticulous compliance with legal and equitable obligations.

Read More »
ms_MYMY
× Hubungi Kami