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?

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.
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

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