Yew Huoi, How & Associates | Leading Malaysia Law Firm

Menu
Real Estate Sue Developer

PROPOSED TEMPORARY MEASURES BILL BARRING HOUSEBUYERS TO SUE DEVELOPER

The Covid-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc to business operations in the world. Performance of contracts in Malaysia is disrupted as the Movement Control Order (“MCO”) restricts performance of unessential services and production of unessential goods.

PROPOSED TEMPORARY MEASURES BILL BARRING HOUSEBUYERS TO SUE DEVELOPER
While the announcement provides relief to developers, however, the delay of Parliamentary seating in Malaysia which is the sequel of the Sheraton Move will leave many to wonder when will this bill be passed

One of such industries affected relates to construction and property development. We have in our previous legal updates set out that the Covid-19 epidemic does not relieve the developer’s duty to complete construction of building within the stipulated timeframe. This is because force majeure clause in a developer’s SPA (which has to comply with Schedule H or G of the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989 (“HDR 1989”)) was previously held by our Federal Court to be void. Doctrine of frustration does not apply to developer’s SPA under HDR 1989. In another words, if developer is not relieved from the lost time brought about by the MCO, it is likely developer will not complete the construction of a project on time. Buyers can then bring action for liquidated ascertained damages (LAD) under the SPA against developer.

That said, developer has finally seen light at the end of the tunnel by the recent announcement by our Housing and Local Government Minister Zuraida Kamarudin on 27.6.2020. It was announced that a new Temporary Measures Bill will be tabled in the next Parliamentary seating. It was also announced that the Temporary Measures Bill will essentially disallow both developers and buyers from suing one another for delay caused by MCO.

While the announcement provides relief to developers, however, the delay of Parliamentary seating in Malaysia which is the sequel of the Sheraton Move will leave many to wonder when will this bill be passed. Politics aside, legislating matters relating to performance of contract during MCO is crucial as it will provide the industry the much-needed clarity and certainty in law. Companies and businesses need to be able to factor in potential losses from the events arising from MCO into their accounts and make provision accordingly. We will strong urge all parties stop the political bickering and do what is needed to be done for businesses and economy first.

©2020. YEW HUOI, HOW & ASSOCIATES. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. The contents of this legal updates are intended for general information only and should not be construed as legal advice or legal opinion. If you need further advice or explanation on the subject, please contact our firm. Please do not reproduce, transmit or distribute the contents therein in any form, or by any means as Legal Profession (Publicity) Rules 2001 restrict such circulation.

Back to Latest Legal Updates

Recent Post

STRATA MANAGEMENT – MANAGEMENT FEE SHOWDOWN – RESIDENTIAL VS. COMMERCIAL – WHO’S PAYING FOR THE EXTRAS?

In a landmark decision in Aikbee Timbers Sdn Bhd & Anor v Yii Sing Chiu & Anor and another appeal [2024] 1 MLJ 94 , the Court of Appeal clarified the rules on maintenance charges and sinking fund contributions in mixed strata developments. Developers and management corporations can impose different rates based on the distinct purposes of residential and commercial parcels. The judgment emphasizes fairness, ensuring residential owners bear the costs of exclusive facilities like pools and gyms, while commercial owners aren’t subsidizing amenities they don’t use. This ruling highlights the importance of transparency in budgeting and equitable cost-sharing in mixed-use properties.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

ILLEGALITY OF UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS’ CLAIM – FINDER’S FEES AND ILLEGALITY: COURT DRAWS THE LINE ON UNREGISTERED ESTATE AGENTS

In a pivotal ruling, the Court of Appeal clarified that finder’s fee agreements are not automatically void under the Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers Act 1981. The Court emphasized that illegality must be specifically pleaded and supported by evidence, and isolated transactions do not trigger the Act’s prohibition. This decision highlights the importance of precise pleadings and a clear understanding of the law’s scope.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES ACT – OPPRESSION – DRAWING THE LINE: FEDERAL COURT DEFINES OPPRESSION VS. CORPORATE HARMS

In a decisive ruling, the Federal Court clarified the boundaries between personal shareholder oppression and corporate harm, overturning the Court of Appeal’s findings. The Court held that claims tied to the wrongful transfer of trademarks belonged to the company, not the individual shareholder, reaffirming that corporate harm must be addressed through a derivative action rather than an oppression claim.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

COMPANIES LAW – WHEN DIRECTORS BETRAY: COURT CONDEMNS BREACH OF TRUST AND CORPORATE MISCONDUCT

In a stark reminder of the consequences of corporate betrayal, the court found that the directors had systematically dismantled their own company to benefit a competing entity they controlled. By breaching their fiduciary duties, conspiring to harm the business, and unjustly enriching themselves, the defendants were held accountable through significant compensatory and exemplary damages, reaffirming the critical importance of trust and integrity in corporate governance.

Read More »
16 December ,2024 No Comments

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
en_USEN
zh_TWZH ms_MYMY en_USEN
× Contact Us