Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
PROCEDURES OF PERFECTION OF TRANSFER & REGISTRATION OF CHARGE

PROCEDURES OF PERFECTION OF TRANSFER & REGISTRATION OF CHARGE

PERFECTION OF TRANSFER

Perfection of Transfer (“POT”) is necessary to transfer the ownership to the Purchaser(s) when the strata title / individual title is issued by the Developer.

Procedures

  • Step 1: The Purchaser(s) shall appoint his/her solicitors.
  • Step 2: The Purchaser(s) shall issue Letter of Authorisation to the solicitors to handle the POT.
  • Step 3: The solicitors will send the Letter of Authorisation to the Developer and liaise with the Developer for the necessary documents (i.e: a copy of title and Developer’s company documents)
  • Step 4: The solicitors will prepare Memorandum of Transfer (Form 14A). The Form 14A shall be executed by both the Developer and the Purchaser(s).
  • Step 5: Upon execution, the Developer shall deliver the original title to the solicitors for the purpose of transferring the ownerships to the Purchaser(s).
  • Step 6: The solicitors shall adjudicate the Form 14A and the Purchaser(s) shall pay stamp duty of the transfer of the Property subject to the purchase price of the Property.
  • Step 7: The solicitors shall present the Form 14A at the Land Office in order to transfer the ownership from the Developer to the Purchaser(s).

REGISTRATION OF CHARGE

If the Purchaser(s) obtains a loan to purchase the Property, the Purchaser(s) shall charge the Property to the bank by way of Registration of Charge (“ROC”).

Procedures

  • Step 1: The Solicitors shall prepare charge documents (i.e Charge Annexure and Form 16A).
  • Step 2: The charge documents shall be executed by the Purchaser(s) and the bank officer.
  • Step 3: Upon execution of the charge documents, the solicitors shall endorse the charge documents on the LHDN website.
  • Step 4: The Purchaser(s) shall pay stamp duty of the charge documents (i.e: RM10.00 per copy).
  • Step 5: The solicitors shall present the charge documents at the Land Office in order to register the charge in favour of the Bank.
Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

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 February ,2026 No Comments

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 February ,2026 No Comments

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 February ,2026 No Comments

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 February ,2026 No Comments

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 February ,2026 No Comments

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 February ,2026 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us