Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu

PROPERTY LAW – STRATA TITLE – APPLICATION

My strata property is still under master title and the developer has wound up. Who will be responsible to subdivide the master title into strata title and what can I do?
Generally, developer must apply for subdivision of the building into strata title for the purchaser.

However, if a developer is wound up, you may contact the official receiver or liquidator of the developer for issuance of strata title.

Q: When should the developer apply for subdivision and strata title of the property?
The application for strata title should be made by your developer :

  1. 6 months after the completion date if the sale and purchase agreement is signed before the complete date of the property.
  2. 6 months after the first unit sold if the sale and purchase agreement is signed after the completion date of the property.

~ S.8(2) of Strata Titles Act 1985,

Q: Can there be extension?
Yes. The developer is allowed to apply for extension of time to apply for strata titles and their application may be allowed once for 3 months.

~ 8(4) of Strata Titles Act 1985,

If they continue to delay with the application, you may bring legal action against them.

Q: What can I do if the developer has failed to apply for strata title or if the liquidator is not cooperative to undertake their responsibility?
You may commence a legal action to compel the liquidator to apply for subdivision of the building to obtain your strata title.

 Developer who failed to apply for strata titles on behalf of the unit owner can be fined RM10,000 to RM 100,000 or imprisonment not exceeding 3 years.

~ S.8(7) Strata Titles Act 1985:

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

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.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

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.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

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.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

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.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments

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.

Read More »
17 November ,2024 No Comments
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us